TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 32/97, which is meant for “d” purpose for diameter 311 - 360 mm consequently the higher ACP was arrived resulting to consequential demand. On perusal of the Notification No. 32/97 dated 01.08.97 and the amended notification No. 45/97 dated 30.08.97, the said formula for determination of ACP has been revised for “d” and “w” for a normal distance of the diameter (“d”) of 260 - 310 mm, “w” has been revised to 1.200 kg/per meter. It is confirmed from the verification report of the appellant’s, normal distance is 300 mm. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant falls within the category “d” 261 to 310 mm and automatically for “w” applicable is 1.200 kg/mtr. and not 2.466 kg/mtr. In view of the above, and also considering that the Hon’ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 14091 MT and subsequently vide proceedings dated 12.09.97, ACP was finally fixed at 14187.978 MT. The appellants were directed to discharge duty liability as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Range Superintendent issued SCN demanding duty of ₹ 18,13,200/- under Section 11 A of CEA read with Rule 9(2) of CER and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order and rejected the appeal. On appeal this Tribunal vide Final Order No.77/2009 dated 15.01.2009, upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. The appellant filed ROM application and the same was also rejected by this Tribunal vide miscellaneous order No. 146/2009 dated 09.04.2009. Aggrieved by this, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of w as 2.47 kg/Mtr. for the nominal diameter ranging 300 to 350 instead of taking w 1.200 kg/Mtr. for diameter 261 to 310 kg./Mtr. He submits that if the revised notification is accepted and ACP is re-fixed and there is no demand arises. He submits that ACP cases of similar issues have already been remanded vide Tribunal s Final Order No. 40241 - 40263/2015 dated 24.02.2015 and vide Final Order No. 40602/2015 dated 27.05.2015. He pleads to set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner to re-fix the ACP as per the amended notification No. 4/97 -NT dated 30.08.97. 4. The Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that ACP was finally fixed by the Commissioner as per the order dated 03.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 200 kg/mtr. and not 2.466 kg/mtr. In view of the above, and also considering that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cestat, Chennai - 2014 (306) ELT 617 (Mad.) and this Tribunal has already remanded the case under Section 3. 7. In view of the forgoing discussions we hold that revised value of d and w is applicable for the appellant case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and remanded to the Commissioner for re-fixing the ACP by applying the correct formula as per the amended notification No. 4/97 -NT dated 30.08.97, by taking the d and w diameter for 300 mm (d) and 1.200 kg/mtr. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
