2010 (8) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame to be listed before this Bench on 19-4-2010 for the first time. Even though the ROM was listed on 24-5-2010 and 5-7-2010 no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly the ROM is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard the learned DR. 3. The appellants have submitted that the observation of the Tribunal that actual APC as per the parameter being less than the actual production of 1996-97, the same has been correctly fixed under Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determining Rules, 1997 is a mistake. They also relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Pooja Steel and Agricultural Industry [2004 (177) E.L.T. 624 (Tri.-Mum.)] a sister concern of the petitioners wherein it was held by the Tribunal that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-1997] 6. It is on the basis of the intimation about the proposed change and after hearing the appellant that the Commissioner had reconsidered the appellant's case and taken a decision in consonance with the sub-rule 4(2) of the said Rules. Under the said sub-rule 4(2), it is provided that in case of manufacturer proposes to make any change in installed machinery or any part thereof which tends to change the value of either of the parameters 'd', 'n ', 'e', 'i' and 'speed of rolling' referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, such manufacturer shall intimate about the proposed change to the Commissioner of Central Excise in writing, with a copy to Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, at least one month in advance of such proposed ch....