2001 (5) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... final products on the basis of the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) of their mill as determined under the provisions of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (in short, ACP Rules). The appellants declared the various parameters of the mill to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3(1) of the ACP Rules on 11-9-1997. On that basis, their ACP was provisionally determined at 8204.082 MT per annum by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the officers of Central Excise visited the appellant s factory and conducted a verification of the parameters. The verification disclosed the value of one of the parameters, namely d (nominal centre distance between the pinions of the pinion stand c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing the payment of duty already made by the party. The appeal filed against the order of adjudication was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department has filed the present appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority. 2. Perused the records and heard both sides. 3. Ld. JDR, Shri J. Singh submits that the respondents had misdeclared the d factor in their letter dated 11-9-1997 and that such misdeclaration was acknowledged by them at the time of verification of parameters by the officers on 21-12-1998. Ld. JDR further submits that the Annual Capacity of Production determined by the Commissioner on the basis of the correct value d ascertained by the officers was also accepted by the appellants and, on that basis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on for invoking the provisions of Section 11AC or Section 11AB of the Act. He further points out that the SCN did not allege any wilful misdeclaration or suppression for invoking the said provisions. These arguments of Counsel are without prejudice to his contention that the provisions of Section 11AC for imposition of mandatory penalty and those of Section 11AB for levy of interest are not applicable to the respondent s case inasmuch as their case is comprehensively covered by the self-contained provisions of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules. Counsel has, therefore, prayed for rejecting the Revenue s appeal and sustaining the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Examined the submission. There is no dispute of the fact that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X