TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original of the Commissioner dated 8-2-2001 vide which he had determined their annual capacity of production (in short ACP) for the period 1-9-99 to 31-3-2000 under Rule 3(3) of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. 2. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner vide order dated 11-12-97 determined ACP of their unit under Rule 5 of the said Capacity Determination Rules. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24-12-97 they requested for installation of the additional rolling stand, with 'd' parameter as 255 mm. and the permission was accordingly granted to them. They then filed revised declaration on 1-4-98. The ACP of their unit was re-determined a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir version and taking into account the Board's clarification vide letter dated 26-2-98 determined the ACP of their both the mills accordingly through the impugned order. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants were not running both the mills simultaneously as they had only one common Electric Motor and Flywheel with which both the mills could not run simultaneously. The ACP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Their plea that on account of having common Flywheel and Electric Motor and two pusher type furnaces, they were not in a position to run both the mills simultaneously, but only one at a time, had been rightly rejected by the Commissioner. The appellants themselves admitted that they were having two rolling mills and two re-heating furnaces. Therefore, their ACP was to be determined keeping in vi....