9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 39 - AT - Central ExciseAnnual Production Capacity Comm.(A) has rightly set aside the order of Ad. Auth. Of demand as assessee had filed the declaration dt.01.10.97 about the change in parameter from 195 mm to 157 mm, verified by the R. Supt. on 20.4.98 - Commissioner (Appeals), accepting the lower APC cannot be faulted
Issues: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the annual production capacity determination and duty imposition.
Analysis: 1. Annual Production Capacity Determination: The respondent, a manufacturer of hot re-rolled products of iron and steel, had their annual production capacity fixed by the Commissioner. The original adjudicating authority imposed duty and penalty based on this capacity determination. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the appeal by the Department. 2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) vs. CESTAT: The Department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to hear and decide appeals arising from orders passed by the Commissioner. They contended that only CESTAT had the power to decide such issues. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the Commissioner, which the Department deemed beyond the Commissioner (Appeals)' jurisdiction. 3. Decision and Rationale: The Commissioner (Appeals) dispensed with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, deciding the appeal on merits. It was found that there was a change in parameter 'd' from 195 mm to 157 mm, reducing the annual production capacity. This change was verified and found correct by the Range Superintendent. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the lower production capacity based on this reduction, citing a precedent from a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Department did not contest the change in parameter or the pending re-fixation representation by the assessee. Consequently, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld as no valid grounds were presented to interfere with the findings and reasoning. In conclusion, the appeal by the Department was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the annual production capacity determination and duty imposition based on the change in parameter 'd'.
|
