9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. The appellant is a manufacturer of steel bars through hot re-rolling process. From September 1997, Annual Capacity of Production based central excise duty was imposed on such re-rollers. 2. Under that scheme, one factor relevant for determining the annual capacity of production of a unit is the distance of the pinions in the pinion stand. 3. Central Excise authorities took 210 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g year 1996-97 was higher at 6054 MT, the duty was required to be paid on that quantity. The present appeal challenges that order. 6. Rule 5 which has been relied upon by the Commissioner may be read: In case, the annual capacity determined by the formula in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 in respect of a mill, is less than the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97, then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97 could be worked out on pro rata/basis, keeping the change of pinion distance and the pro rata production so worked out should be treated as actual production and levy imposed on that basis. 9. We find merit in the appellant s contention. Comparisons can be among comparables only. The change made in machinery (pinion distance) in April 1997 made the production capacity of 1996-97 non-comparabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid Rule 5 is not applicable to the present case and duty was required to be paid on the basis of the capacity of production worked out in terms of the formula contained in the Rules. That capacity was 3613 MT and the appellant had paid duty applicable to that quantity. There was no short-levy. The demand made is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
