TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri B.N. Chatopadhyaya, Consultant. for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Roy, Supdt. (AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Bijay Kumar 1. The present appeal is file against the impugned order vide which the Commissioner has rejected the representation of re-fixation of ACP against the appellant in spite of two remand order dated 13/12/2000 and 11/04/2007. In the two remand orders passed by this Tribunal Ld. Adjudicating Authority was directed to dispose of the representation pertaining to re-fixation of capacity of production on the basis of only one batch type furnace which was functional through the impugned period. This is the thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination Rules, 1977, and accordingly the appellant was required to pay ₹ 51,608.40 only per month which is the duty of 172.028 MT of the said goods per month on the basis of fixed annual capacity production at the rate of 300 MT. 3. During the scrutiny of RT-12 return from period from September, 1997 to March, 1998, it was observed that the assessee has paid the excise duty amounting to ₹ 64,987.00 thereby short paid the duty to the extent to ₹ 2,96,271.80 in respect of goods so produced. Consequently, a show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant and the case was adjudicated confirming the demand as per the impugned order through a series of adjudication order passed on various occasions. Being aggrieved b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble CESTAT. In view of the fact that batch type furnace is required to be taken as one instead of two, has completely been ignored in the impugned order, and therefore, same is erroneous. There is no question of payment of penalty and interest in terms of order of CESTAT dated 11/04/2007. Therefore, accordingly ld. Advocate submits that the case relied upon by the ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order has no relevance at all. In view of above ld Advocate on behalf of appellant prays for setting aside of impugned order. 6. Ld. Advocate further submits that the observation of ld. Commissioner that ACP was correctly fixed in case of appellant initially 2064.399 MT is correct and required to be duty accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant is not claiming any abatement for any such period but they are requested for re-determination of capacity of the production for the entire period. Since only one furnace working along with and other was not functional, therefore, the previous order of the Commissioner was set aside by the CESTAT with the direction to re-determined the annual capacity of production basis of only one batch furnace. This has not been done by the Adjudicating Authority in this case. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not only defied the order of remand by the CESTAT but also relied upon the case which has not relevance at all in this case. The matter is old and the Revenue has not followed the previous two remand order of this Tribunal. We feel tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
