9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against Order No. 33/2004, dated 30-9-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad-I Commissionerate consequent to Final Order No. 1310/2002, dated 7-10-2002. This issue had already come before the Tribunal twice. In the Final Order dated 7-10-2002, there is an observation that the adjudicating authority has not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue keeping in mind the observations of the Tribunal in its first order. On going through the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority has completely ignored the observations of the Tribunal and proceeded to re-determine the capacity. He has made an observation that the proceedings of the BIFR are not relevant for deciding the present case in the light of the Apex Court decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpletely ignoring the directions of the Tribunal. Hence, she requested to allow payment of duty on the basis of the actual production. The following case-laws were also relied on :- (i) S.G. Multicast Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 315 (Tri.- Kolkata) (ii) Nalanda Electro Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 408 (Tri.- Kolkata) (iii) J.M.G. Steel Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment in the present case is to be decided only for the period from 1-9-1997 to 17-11-1997. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, the adjudicating authority ought to have allowed the request of the appellant for payment of duty during this period on the basis of the actual production. However, he completely ignored the directives of the Tribunal in this matter. The imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
