9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises against the order-in-original No. 32/2001, dated 14-8-2002 by which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore has re-determined the Annual Capacity Production and has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-. He has noted in the order that the action relating to the penalty and interest will be taken up subject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgments : (a) Richimen Silk Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 795 (Tri. - Chennai) (b) Apple International v. CC, Nhava Seva - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 671 (T) (c) IPL Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 338 (Madras) (d) Chamundi Steel Castings (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 578 (T) It is argued that in the simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of UOI v. Supreme Steel & General Mills reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) is required to be observed; which has not been done in the matter. 3. Appearing for the appellants ld. Counsel submits that the factory had been closed for the relevant period and the power supply had been disconnected. There is no question of computing duty for the period, when the factory was cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f revenue, the appellants prayer for adjournment should have been considered and another date of hearing should have been given to enable the appellants to explain their case. We note that there are other infirmities. The effect of the Notification in question had been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. Now the Apex Court also given their rulings in the case of UOI v. Supreme Steels & General Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
