9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bars. They opted for functioning under compounded levy scheme when it came into force in 1997. That is a scheme which permits discharge of duty based on the capacity of production. The appellant's capacity was fixed by the Commissioner at 3.5 MTs. That decision is one of the issues under challenge in the present appeal. The second dispute is regarding appellant's right to opt out of the scheme. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was entirely according to the relevant Rules. He referred us in this connection to the following observations in the impugned order. "The procedure for determination of annual capacity of production of Induction furnace was set out in the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of the said Rules is reproduced herein below :- "The Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the manufacturer/supplier's invoice with complete details is available. The party's contention that physical measurements as given in the Technical expert's report should have been taken to determine the ACP, does not hold any ground in view of the clear cut wordings of the particular rule in question." 3. It is the ld. SDR's submission that since the determination of capacity has been done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounded levy scheme, there is no dispute that appellant had opted out of the scheme from 25th September, 1997. The submission on this point of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it is now settled law in terms of Apex Court's decision in the case of Supreme Steel [2001 (133) E.L.T. 513] that an option given is binding only for the concerned year and the manufacturer can opt out of it for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
