9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of report of National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology (NISST), Mandi, Gobindgarh, Punjab, on their inspection to the factory carried out on 16-11-99. 2. Shri Laxminarayan Goyal, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants are manufacturers of Hot Re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which are covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He said the factory was inspected by the NISST team on 16-11-99 and noted i factor as 0.627 against 0.59 declared by them. Based on the report of NISST, a show cause notice dated 15-3-2000 was issued to them proposing to fix duty liability based on the d , n i fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3). He pleaded that i factor taken by the Commissioner on the basis of report of NISST was as per the powers vested to him under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 by requisitioning the service of Technical Experts of National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab for verification of parameters declared by the appellants as well as other mills noted in the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate. The details of inspection and verification were conducted in presence of independent witnesses and Panchnama was drawn in presence of the appellants. They did not seek revision of Annual Capacity of their own on the ground that there have been wear and tear. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rekan Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 567 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 175 (CEGAT-Del.). We find that in all these cases, the dispute was with regard to determination of d factor and nobody has challenged the determination of i factor in any of these cases. In these cases, it is also held that appellants are free to bring their own expert and copy of verification report to be given to them. In the present case, we find that the verification report was given to them and they have not challenged the method of determination of value of i factor. They have only challenged that it should be made applicable prospectively. We find that value of i factor can be changed only when there is a change in the electric motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
