9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2000, the clearance of the goods and payment of excise duty is covered under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Assistant Commissioner in his proceedings dated 29.08.1997 informed the appellant that the Annual capacity production (ACP) has been provisionally fixed at 14091 MT and subsequently vide proceedings dated 12.09.97, ACP was finally fixed at 14187.978 MT. The appellants were directed to discharge duty liability as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Range Superintendent issued SCN demanding duty of Rs. 18,13,200/- under Section 11 A of CEA read with Rule 9(2) of CER and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 300 mm. This has been verified and confirmed by the jurisdictional Superintendent and confirmed. He submits that while fixing ACP, the Commissioner has not taken into consideration the amended Notification No. 45/97, instead computed the ACP based on the original Notification No. 32/97 by taking the value of "w" as 2.47 kg/Mtr. for the nominal diameter ranging 300 to 350 instead of taking "w" 1.200 kg/Mtr. for diameter 261 to 310 kg./Mtr. He submits that if the revised notification is accepted and ACP is re-fixed and there is no demand arises. He submits that ACP cases of similar issues have already been remanded vide Tribunal's Final Order No. 40241 - 40263/2015 dated 24.02.2015 and vide Final Order No. 40602/2015 dated 27.05.2015. He p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diameter ("d") of 260 - 310 mm, "w" has been revised to 1.200 kg/per meter. It is confirmed from the verification report of the appellant's, normal distance is 300 mm. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant falls within the category "d" 261 to 310 mm and automatically for "w" applicable is 1.200 kg/mtr. and not 2.466 kg/mtr. In view of the above, and also considering that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cestat, Chennai - 2014 (306) ELT 617 (Mad.) and this Tribunal has already remanded the case under Section 3. 7. In view of the forgoing discussions we hold that revised value of "d" and "w" is applicable for the appellant case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and remanded to the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
