9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against OIO 34/02, dated 9-8-02 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central excise Hyderabad I Commissionerate. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- 2. The appellants are manufacturers of man made fabrics an excisable commodity. They are working under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act which prescribed that duty should be discharged basing on the annual capaci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of duty determination but the same was dismissed by the Bangalore bench of CESTAT vide Final order 402/04, dated 19-2-04. The appellant is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner. 3. Shri Lakshminarayan Goyal learned Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa learned JDR for the Revenue. The learned advocate advanced the following arguments. (1) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CESTAT in Final order 402/04 had dismissed the departmental appeal based on verification report dated 14-1-02. Hence the present appeal requires to be allowed as the same is on the same facts. (4) The Commissioner is not justified in ignoring the verification report on record furnished by the departmental officers. He had relied upon the retracted statement of Shri J. Tharusia to pass the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case carefully. The Commissioner has determined originally the annual capacity of production based on verification report of the Assistant Commissioner. In the verification report dated 2-9-99, it has been stated that M/s. Sunny Textiles has a single stenter with three chambers working. It has originally five chambers but two chambers were dismantled. The Superintendent in his letter dated 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, this entire issue has reached finality in the Final order No 402/04. It should be borne in mind that the CESTAT is the final fact finding authority. In these circumstance, the bar of resjudicata operates. The impugned adjudication order decides an issue which has already been decided in the Final Order No 402/04. Hence the OIO has no merits. We set aside the same and allow the appeals with cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
