2006 (11) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. Both these appeals arise from OIA Nos. 544 545/2002-C.E. dated 6-11-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Cochin. The appellants are manufacturers of CTD Bars and Rods. They were following the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... However, before the authorities they challenged the assessments on annual capacity but the same was not accepted by both the authorities on the ground that the assessment order in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act read with Rules 96ZP(1) and 96ZP(O) of Central Excise Rules had not been challenged by them. Therefore, the demands were required to be confirmed. He submitted two miscellaneous .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent without a saving clause. Therefore in all similar matters which came up before this Bench, the demands were all set aside by following the Mumbai Bench Order rendered in the case of Mitra Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (204) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) by Final Order Nos. A/1444-1446/WZB/2005, dated 12-8-05 which followed its earlier order in Kundil Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Goa by Final Order No. A/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X