9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, for the Appellants and Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The learned Advocate, submitted that hot re-rolled products were declared as notified goods under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act with effect from 1-9-1997; that a declaration was filed by the Appellants on 1-9-1997 giving parameters of their mill; that they have followed the same with a Certificate dated 4-9-1997 of an Expert Technical Authority M/s. Rakesh Agarwal and Associates certifying various parameters of their mill; that the Commissioner under Order No. 94/97, dated 29-9-1997 determined their annual capacity at 6590.638 MT; that on Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal vide Order No. 29/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can not be claimed by the Appellants that the verification of the parameters of their mill was not done by the Department with the help of an expert; that the Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter vide Final Order No. 29/2000-B, dated 5-1-2000 only with the direction to redetermine the production capacity after furnishing the verification report that as the verification report has been furnished, the principles of natural justice has been complied with and the Order deserves to be upheld. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. When the matter was heard by the Tribunal first time against the Order-in-Original No. 94/97, dated 29-9-1997, the Appellants had contended that they had submitted a representation in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the earlier verification report has been signed by Rakesh Agarwal and Associates. We also observe that in the Memorandum of Appeal, it is not specifically averred by the Appellants that Shri Yash Pal Arora was not present at the time of verification. They have merely mentioned in the grounds of Appeal that the said report is silent whether Shri Yash Pal Arora, partner was present at the time of verification . The said Yash Pal Arora has only signed the Memorandum of Appeal on behalf of the Appellants firm and he should have clearly mentioned in the grounds of Appeal, that he was not present during the verification which he has not done. In view of this, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. Accordingly, the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
