2002 (2) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19/21-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had determined the duty liability of the appellants under sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots. ACP of their unit was initially det .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sis of the actual production. The correctness of the duty amount as recorded in the impugned order, on determination under Section 3A(4) of the Act, has not been questioned before us. 4. The only grievance put forth by the learned Counsel is that after determination of the duty liability under sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Act, the Commissioner was duty bound to pass the order under sub-s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be found in the order. 6. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 7. The impugned order had been admittedly passed by the Commissioner on the request of the appellants under sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Act, and he had determined their duty liability. It was for the appellants to claim the relief under sub-section 5 of Section 3A of the Act. There is nothing on the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X