1998 (7) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emsp;The fact of the case briefly are that the Office of the Commissioner vide letter dated 31-3-1998 has informed the appellants that the Commissioner has finally fixed the annual capacity production for their Induction Furnace Unit as 9.5 M.T. with effect from 1-9-1997 to 31-3-1998 and they have demanded the said duty and interest. Aggrieved by this the appellant have come in appeal. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri B.V. Kumar for the appellants and learned JDR, Shri S. Kannan for the department. 4. As the matter lies on a short compass, with the consent of both sides we proceed to take up the main appeal itself after granting waiver for the balance amount and stay of recovery of the duties etc. involved. 5. We find ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration is as per the appellant, and learned Advocate fairly concedes, that the correct and objective capacity should be 8.53 MTs, whereas, according to the department as stated in the impugned order the capacity is 9.5. MTs. It is for our consideration as to what should be the resolution of this dispute. 9. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and the case records. In another case this very Tribunal in the case of M/s Saravana Alloy Steels (P) Ltd. vide Final Order No. S/569/98 1224/98, dated 26-6-1998 [1998 (102) E.L.T. 668 (Tribunal)] had held that the order in the form of impugned letter was an order passed under sub- section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and was, therefore, appealable under the ....