9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01-TECH, dated 31-1-2001 passed by the same Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of hot re-rolled products falling under chapter sub-heading 7214.90 of CET and covered under heading Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules. The appellants changed the parameters of the re-rolling mills vide their declaration filed in Notification No. 45/97, dated 30-8-97 inter alia indicating the furnace as batch type in the case of E/486/2001 and pusher type in the case of E/487/2001. 2. In the case of E/486/2001, that is, in the case of Tamilnadu Forging Pvt. Ltd. the Commissioner has recorded the finding as follows :- I have carefully gone through the records, reply to the show cause notice and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows :- I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made in the reply to the show cause notice and at the time of personal hearing. As seen from the records, the assessee has originally declared the parameters of the Re-rolling Mills vide their letter dated 15-9-97 and the same was verified by the Technical Expert Dr. L. Vijayaraghavan on 30-9-97 and based on this the Annual Capacity of Production was fixed as 3045 MTs and communicated to the assessee on 31-8-98. As per the original declaration, the assessee had inter alia declared that the furnace is of pusher type. The Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, and this was done based on the declaration filed by the assessee and on verification by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to is the fixation of the Annual Capacity of Production in terms of Rule 5 relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Awadh Alloys (P) Ltd. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 719 (T)], which is not the case here. The circumstances of this case are therefore clearly distinguishable from the facts in the case law cited. The request of the assessee for refixing the Annual Capacity for Production with respect to the change of furnace from batch is therefore liable to be rejected. 4. We have heard ld. Counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam for the appellants and Shri Soundararajan, DR for the revenue. 5. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of Tamilnadu Forging Pvt. Ltd. the annual capacity of production was provisionally fixed at 709.436 MT. The appellant file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pusher type. They relied on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal as reported in the case of Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 363, Awadh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 719 and Sawanmal Shibumal v. CCE as reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 46 (LB) wherein it has been held that Rule 5 of the said Rules cannot be applied and hence ld. Counsel submits that the order is required to be set aside. 6. In the case of Coromandal Steel Products also he made a similar submission and relied on the same citations. He also pointed out that the Commissioner had clearly violated the principles of natural justice in not adopting to technical advice. He contended that the parameters have not been pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
