2015 (4) TMI 1224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as when the appellant had made a request for re-determining their duty liability for the period of dispute on the basis of actual production and there is such a provision in sub-section (4) of Section 3A, the Commissioner should have considered their request for the same - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for re-determining the appellant's duty liability on the basis of actual production .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act 1944 read with Rule 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Initially the Commissioner determined their monthly duty liability on the basis of their provisional Annual Capacity of production as ₹ 7.5 Lakhs per month per stenter and since there was only one stenter, their provisional duty liability was fixed as ₹ 7.5 Lakhs per month. However, the Commissioner vide Final Order dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ased on actual production in terms of sub-section (4) of section 3A. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Both the sides agree that the Commissioner in the impugned order has not considered the appellant s request for re-determination of their duty liability under section 3A (4) on the basis of their actual production. The only reaso .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X