1999 (5) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....am Singh, SDR and S. Srivastava, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. -  The appeals of M/s. Shah Ji Steels, M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P) Limited and M/s. Raman Ispat (P) Limited pertain to common issue holding that if the assessee has opted for availing concessional rate of duty under Rule 96ZO(3), he cannot claim concession of sub-section 4 of Section 3A. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) R.L.T. 82]. It was submitted by them that this Tribunal held that if there was conflict between Rule 96ZO(3) and sub-section 4 of Section 3A, the provisions of sub-section 4 of Section 3A shall prevail. They submitted that their case was fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal and prayed that the pre-deposit of duty may be waived and the cases may be sent back to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....determination of the capacity and then the actual production for determination of the duty liability. He submits that no doubt the Commissioner examined the duty liability under Rule 96ZO(3). They also submit that Rule 96ZO(3) is wrong rule for the purpose of determining the production of capacity for actual redetermination of duty liability under sub-section 4 of Section 3A. 5. Heard the ri....