TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irector, for the Appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.D. Mankar, Member (T)]. The appellants are a steel rolling mill. They had opted for payment of duty on the rolled products. The dispute relates to determination of annual capacity of production (ACP). The appellants had declared that they have two rolling stands corresponding to each furnace. They ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r roughing purpose. 2. The Commissioner, after considering the various submissions held that, since two separate mills are installed in the appellant's factory, the capacity of the appellant's factory was determined on the basis of capacity of the two mills. The appellants are disputing this capacity fixation on the ground that, the bigger mill is idle and only the stands of the said mill ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been determined, by ignoring the capacity of the bigger mill. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and we note that the contentions of the appellants are without any merits. In terms of Rule (4) of the Hot Re-Rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 the Commissioner is required to determine the total capacity of the hot rolling mill installed in the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ughing stand and finishing mills are located in two different sections, which are also run by independent power sources, R.P.M. of the finishing mill should be adopted for the purpose of determining the annual capacity. We have perused the said instructions carefully and we are unable to see as to how the said instruction can lend support to the case of the appellants. As we have noted, in this ca....