9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, Ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. Kannan, Ld. D.R. 2. Ld. Advocate submits that the matter is already a covered one and cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Awadh Alloys (P) Ltd. v. CCE as in 1999 (112) ELT 719 (T) wherein it was held that when on a request from the assessees the Commissioner refixes the annual capacity on the basis of declared change in parameters, such order being passed under Sub Clause (2) of Clause 4 of Notification No. 32/97-CE, then the provisions of Rule 5 of the said rules of Notification No. 45/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 shall not be applicable. Ld. Advocate explains that the net effect of this decision is that in their case, on a request being made for permission for altering the paramete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in Rule 5 of the Hot Steel Rerolling Mills (Annual Capacity Determination) Rules 1997 is to the actual production of the 'mill', and is not related to the technical parameters of the machinery. Hence, even if the parameters have been altered, the actual production of 1996-97 would be relevant for determining the current year's duty liability under section 3A. However, the rate of duty would be with reference to the value of 'd' as existing in the current year. He submits that a plain reading thereof shows that even when capacity is determined on changed parameters, the Rule 5 of the said rules would have to be applied. In this case, the Ld. Commissioner has done only that and therefore being bound by the Board' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commissioner refixes the annual capacity in terms of Clause 4(2) of Notification No. 32/97-CE, then Rule 5 of the said rules is not applicable; that is to say, that the actual production of 1996-97 is not to be taken into consideration at all. The facts in this case are similar as also the relief prayed for. As a co-ordinate bench, the judicial discipline requires us to follow the ratio of the said decision. Ld. D.R. has submitted that perhaps the Board's circular was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, Board's circular is not binding on the Tribunal, therefore, we cannot say that just because it may not have been brought to the, notice of the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal is not good law. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
