2006 (8) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent. [Order]. - These appeals have been filed against the Order (Original) No. 13/99, dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Commissionerate. 2. The appellants were working under the Compound Levy Scheme. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they changed the parameters "I" from 0.32 to 0.36 without intimating the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Original Authority. 3. Shri L.N. Goyal, learned Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri R.K. Singla, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue. 4. The learned Consultant urged the following points :- (i)      The verification of the parameter was done by the Departmental officers and based on that, the final Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) order was is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2002, dated 26-7-2002. The learned Consultant submitted that the charge of suppression is unsustainable and demand cannot be retrospectively but only be prospectively. (v)     Further relying on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Mohinder Steels v. CCE [2002 (145) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. - LB) wherein it was held that Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Hot Re-rollin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lants that different instruments were used on two different occasions. These points have not been discussed. In these circumstances, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellants. Following ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rayalseema Steel Re-Rolling Mills cited supra by the Consultant, I hold that the changed parameters can have only prospective effect and not retrospective....