TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Capacity of Production. 2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants commenced manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots/billets falling under sub-heading 7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act from 17-7-98; that in their declaration filed under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, they mentioned that they had a composite plant having induction furnace with secondary refining facility and continuous casting facility within the same factory premises and accordingly claimed the benefit of payment of duty under Section 3 of the Act read with Notification No. 30/97-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 1-8-97 as amended by Notification No. 43/97-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 30-8-97; that, however, the Assistant Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of Order passed by the Dy. Commissioner which had already been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals); that without complying with the specific directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter cannot be decided; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given the direction, while remanding the matter, that the sample of the metal from the induction furnace as well as of the product coming from the ladle i.e. the finished product should be drawn and got tested by a recognised laboratory for verifying the extent of impurities; that no such samples were drawn as the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Order was of the view that at the belated stage there was no point or relevancy in drawing samples as the Appellants might have mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals); that the report of the joint inspection team had been supplied to the Appellants; that the Appellants have only challenged the technical capabilities of the Joint Director and have not challenged the reasons contained therein and the conclusion arrived at; that the Adjudicating Authority has discussed the Report given by Shri Sampet and given his reasons for not accepting the same; that the Adjudicating Authority has also mentioned the reasons in the impugned order as to why drawing of samples would be of no use; that a test report of finished goods would not lead to the conclusion that a particular factory is having a refining facility or not. 4. We have considered the submissions of both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formalities. The sample so drawn may be sent to a recognised laboratory for testing/verifying the extent of the impurities in both the samples. The test results may also be communicated to the appellant and their submission thereon obtained before deciding the case. (4) The Deputy Commissioner is also at liberty to make further study of the manufacturing process before passing the de novo order. 5. We find substance in the submissions of the ld. Advocate for the Appellants that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the directions contained in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as no samples of the metal from the induction furnace as well as ladle were drawn an....