2007 (7) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri M.M. Mathkar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) crept in the impugned Order No. A/86/III/SMC/WZB/06, dated 9-11-2005 [2006 (196) E.L.T. 19 (T)]. In this appeal, the issue relates to whether the Rule 5 of the Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is applicable when the appellants effected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Haryana High Court as extracted in the impugned order is misconstrued in the facts and circumstances of the case and instead allowing the appeal, the same has been dismissed. This is an apparent mistake on the face of the records. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant that when the production capacity is brought down by effecting the changes in the machinery, the previous year produ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us year but not on the decreased production. The challenge annual production capacity fixed by the authorities below was not the issue before the Tribunal in the above appeal. An error is pointed out that pre-deposit as laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in respect of Rule 5 is misinterpreted and dismissed the appeal. At this juncture, it is pointed out that the judgment of the P....