9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnical Member For the appellant - Shri A. Cletus, Adc (AR) For the respondent - None ORDER Per Bench: Appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.06/2006 (M-II), dated 31.01.2006. 2. M/s. P.M.P. Wire Rod co, Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as assessee ) is engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel falling under CETH 7214.90. During the period of dispute, they were discharging the Central Excise duty liability under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and opted for monthly payment of duty. 3. The assessee filed a declaration dated 15.09.1997 to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fixing of Annual Capacity of Production (hereinafter referred to as ACP ) declaring their furnace was of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the matter vide the impugned order. 3.2 Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, decided that in absence of refixation of the ACP by jurisdictional Commissioner, it would be necessary to go by the views expressed by the technical experts, who were part of the technical Committee. Since technical experts had taken the view that the furnace was of the 'batch type, he decided that it would be appropriate to follow their opinion. Accordingly, he set aside the duty demand. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed by Revenue. 5. With the above background, Shri A. Cletus, Additional Commissioner on behalf of Revenue argued the case and none present for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of duty payable. In the impugned order, it has been held that the respondent's furnace is of batch type . Inspite of that we are of the view that the statutory power for refixing the ACP has been given only to the jurisdictional Commissioner and not to Commissioner (Appeals). There is nothing on record to indicate that he has fixed such ACP as per the revised application. 8. In the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue by accepting the technical opinion given by the technical experts, who were part of the Committee. While we are able to appreciate the fact that he has gone ahead with the decision in view of the case being very old. However, it cannot be overlooked that the statutory power for refixing such A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
