1999 (5) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i Satnam Singh, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty payable in terms of the annual capacity as determined by the impugned order and stay its recovery and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. 2. In this case, the ACP of the furnace of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing heard before passing fresh orders. However, in spite of this direction in the remand order, the Commissioner in the present order has held that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of determination on the basis of actual production as per Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act since they have opted for duty liability in terms of Rule 96ZO(3). He further submits that the copy of the verifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....  We have perused the remand order of the Tribunal and agree with the appellants that the Tribunal had directed determination of ACP on actual production basis. We therefore, hold that the impugned order determining the ACP in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) is contrary to the terms of the remand order and accordingly set aside the same. The ACP of the appellants furnace is directed to be determined on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X