TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been decided by the Hon'ble High Court against the assessee and in the favour of the Department following Apex Court's judgment in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills (2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In view of this, last sentence in the order dated 18/12/2013 to that "it is made clear that the order of the tribunal passed on 9/10/2010 in the present appeal shall operate" is deleted. - Rectification done. - ROM Application No. E/ROM/51433/2014, Appeal No. E/1658/2000-EX[DB] - - - Dated:- 6-2-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (J) And S. K. Mohanty, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Punjab Haryana High Court vide order dated 29/7/2002 directed the Tribunal to refer the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order: Whether Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would apply to the case where annual capacity of production has been re-determined in terms of Rule 4(2) on the account of change in parameters even though re-determined capacity is less than the annual production for the financial year 1996-97 3. The Tribunal in accordance with the High Court's order dated 29/7/2002 made the required statement of the case to the High Court. Matter was finally decided by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26/8/2011 by which Hon'ble High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the correct date of the Tribunal's orders is 9/10/2000 and not 9/10/2010 . 6. None present for the appellant. 7. Heard Sh. Ranjan Khana ld. DR who explained that there is a clear mistake in the last sentence of the first para of the Tribunal's order dated 18/12/2013 and that the same has to be deleted. 8. From the records it is clear that initially Tribunal vide order dated 9/10/2000 which is wrongly mentioned in the order 18/12/2013 as 9/10/2010 had allowed the parties' appeal. 9. However, on appeal being filed by the Revenue against the order dated 9/10/2000 of the Tribunal the issue had been decided by the Hon'ble High Court against the assessee and in the favour of the Department following Apex Court&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
