9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (ACP) for the 10" and 16" million for the year 1997-98. On 30-3-1998, the Commissioner ordered that the ACP determined provisionally became final. The superintendent of Central Excise conducted certain checks on 22nd December 1998 on the parameters of the 10" mill and the 16" mill. He found discrepancies between the parameters declared and what he found on verification. On the basis of the variation, a show cause notice dated 17-6-1999 was issued to the appellants in the show cause notice, the ACP proposed was on the basis of the parameters ascertained by the superintendent during his visit. The Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original No. 16/1999, dated 31-12-1999 confirming the demand. The appellant approached the Tribunal. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner for deviating for re-determining the ACP which was originally fixed by CCE, Belgaum on 30-3-1998. When the Superintendent of Central Excise visited the unit on 22-12-1998, the mill had a break-down and the same was not functioning. Therefore, the maintenance staff had temporary connected the BHEL motor to the pinion stand as a temporary measure. (ii) The Superintendent of Central Excise was not competent to take proper measurement of the parameters (iii) There is no evidence on record to show that the said BHEL motor of 738 RPM was connected to the 16" Mill either before or after 22-12-1998. (iv) The learned Advocate relied on the case of Malhotra Industrial Corporation v. CCE, Chandigar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finishing stand roll with 305R/pinion stand using the Crompton Greaves motor and connection to BHEL motor was a technical requirement. For this purpose the contention of both Shri P.R. Sriraman and Shri Surya Rao, as stated above, will have also to be considered by the Commissioner in the light of the technical opinion now to be obtained. The matter, therefore, is required to be remanded to the Commissioner to find out and to establish the factual position". The Commissioner while passing the impugned order totally ignored the directions of the Tribunal as well as test report given the Technical Expert dated 22-11-2002. On this ground impugned order is liable to be quashed. (vi)& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on 30-3-1998. Consequent to the Superintendent's visit on 22-12-98, the parameters were checked in view of the variation between the declared parameters and what has been checked by the Superintendent, proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The matter was decided by the Commissioner on 31-12-1998. Later the appellants approached the CESTAT, which remanded the matter to the Original Authority. While remanding the Tribunal wanted technical experts to give their finding on the charges of the Revenue, especially the question of permanent connection of the BHEL motor to the pinion stand. It has also been observed that "While the matter is being re-determined the other grievances of the appellants before us with reference to the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
