ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The applicants are not present but request that another appeal to be linked with this appeal for consideration. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the issue being settled, the appeal itself could be disposed of at the stage. We proceed to do so.
2. The appellant was operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination (HASITPACD) Rules, 1998. In determining the number of chambers the length of the galleries had been added. Before the Commissioner an order of the (CEGAT) was cited in the case of C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000(120) ELT 829 (T)] in which the CEGAT had held that regarding at the purpose served by the galleries could not be taken into account while determining the number of chambers. In the face of this direct order also the Ltd. Commissioner attempted to distinguish the said judgement. He went into the interpretation of the explanation to notification No.42/98. He also referred to some other case law which advice that the clear meaning of the words had to be taken into account for interpretation of the notification and not the intendment. Having done this he proceeded to hold against the assessees.
3. We find that the view held by the Tribunal in the cited judgement, was held by all the Benches of the Tribunal and was affirmed by the Larger Bench in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2001(127) ELT 679 (Tri-LB)]. In the face of this body of case law the orders of the Commissioner do not survive and are required to be set aside. We mention here that the Commissioners at all times must overcome the temptation to add to the Revenues by misinterpretating the judgement of the Tribunal or by attempting to place a different interpretation thereupon. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced in Court)