9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huk, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. - In this stay application filed by M/s. Arihant Steel, the applicants have sought to setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, dated 31-3-1998 under Rule 3(4) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. 2. Ld. Advocate for the applicants refers to Rule 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them to the appellants was 450 KW and having capacity of 1 Ton. He also referred to a letter from National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology dated 26-3-1998 addressed to the present applicants in which the details of the capacity of the induction furnace installed in the appellant's factory has been mentioned as one M.T. Ld. Counsel submits that these certificates were submitted to the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50/98-NB, dated 24-4-1998 in which the Tribunal had set aside the orders of the Commissioner and directed pre-determination of the duty liability in terms of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Rules. We find from the perusal of the said orders that in those cases also the question of correct determination of duty liability on the basis of the capacity of the machinery installed was considered and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the study report conducted by the National Institute of Secondary Steel Techno- logy on 26-3-1998 which has been signed by the Departmental Officer as well as the applicant's representative which had recorded that there was a break down in the plant at the time of conducting the study and therefore, the operation of the furnace could not be observed. 4. We have considered the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. If the Commissioner was not for any reason satisfied with the certificates and other evidence brought before him by the applicants, he should have recorded the reasons for rejecting the same and for making a further enquiry as provided under Rule 3(2). 5. In view of the facts mentioned above, we accept the prayer of the applicants for setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
