2002 (5) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - Appeals No. E/518, 519, 657 and 520 were heard together as the issue in all these appeals is the same. 2. In the impugned order learned Commissioner determined the capacity of production and confirmed the demand of Rs. 21,19,196/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC, d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....correct and did not conquer with the measurement of crucible already supplied to M/s. Govind Mills, Gorakhpur. 4. Accordingly, the Commissioner reopened his final determination by issue of show cause notice asking the appellants to explain as to why ACP should not be redetermined and differential duty should not be demanded. Learned Commissioner after hearing the appellants decided as indica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed pursuant to this show cause notice is also illegal and invalid. In support of his contention he cited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ramnath Omkaramal Steel Rolling v. C.C.E., Hyderabad reported in 2001 (138) E.L.T 363. He submits that the Tribunal in this case held that determination of annual capacity of production under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is final a....