2002 (1) TMI 1014

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tember, 1997 to January, 1998. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots/Billets. They opted for the payment of central excise duty under the Compound Levy Scheme as per Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules for full and final discharge of the duty. Accordingly, their annual capacity of production (in short 'ACP') and monthly duty liability (MDL) were provisionally determined on the basis of the declaration and verification made by the Central Excise Officers, and the same was communicated to them vide their letter dated 30-9-1997. However, later on team of Central Excise Officers along with independent expert visited the factory premises of the appellants from 16-1-1998 and re-measured the various parameters of the Inducti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during the course of arguments, suggested that the appellants are prepared to pay the duty on the basis of all the above referred three verification reports for the period falling in between those verifications or on the basis of first verification report dated 6-9-1997 for the entire disputed period or on the strength of last verification report dated 15-3-2001 as may be decided by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel has prayed for remand of the case on this score. 4. The learned JDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 6. The comparative chart of the measurements of the parameters made from time to time as given in the impugned ord....