9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, the Commissioner should have got the measurement conducted again before fixing annual capacity. Para 4 of the said order is reproduced below : 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that there is an enhancement in the fixation of annual capacity of the appellant s production from the provisional order dated 1-10-97 to the final impugned order dated 26-3-98. This enhancement is based upon the Commissioner s visit and the measurement got conducted by him between centre of the pinion stand. We take note of the fact that the distance arrived at by the Commissioner during his visit in the appellants factory on 30-9-97 was challenged by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Accordingly, I hold that d factor was correctly determined at 220 MM on 30-9-97 and since the pinion can be easily changed to alter the d factor, there is no justification for re-determining the same, just because the Divisional A.C. during verification on 27-2-98 found it to be 209 MM. At page 22 of the order he has observed as under : The entire case papers were sent to the Legal Adviser who was handling the case before the CEGAT at Calcutta. It appears that the same missed his attention and CEGAT could not be briefed on the developments. The above clearly establishes that the assessee mischievously suppressed very relevant facts of the case from the Hon ble CEGAT and succeeded in obtaining a favourable order. Again a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not open to the Commissioner to observe such reverification was not necessary . It is felt that if the Commissioner was aggrieved with the above order of the Tribunal directing reverification of the measurement in the said order, he could have challenged the same before higher appellate forum. Having not done so, the adjudicating authority was duty bound to carry out the directions contained in the Tribunal s order instead of defying the same by observing that such direction was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Commissioner felt that the appellants had procured the above order of the Tribunal by misrepresentation, the proper course for the Revenue was to get the said order modified or challenge the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
