2015 (6) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The appellant submits that the issue relates to Annual Capacity Production (ACP) under compound levy scheme on re-rolling mills. 2. The Ld. Advocate submits that the present demand is in consequence of the Commissioners original adjudication Order OIO No. V/72/30/6/97-Tech dated 31.03.2006, which was before this Tribunal in appeal No. E/486/2006. He further submits that this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40241-40263/2015 dated 24.02.2015 remanded batch of appeals to the adjudicating authority with the direction to redetermine ACP. Since the OIO dated 31.3.2006 was already set aside and remanded, he pleads for modification of the stay order an also pleads that the present appeal may also be remanded to the original authority as no demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oys Ltd. Vs CESTAT Chennai 2014 (206) ELT 617 (Mad.) (b) CCE Chandigarh Vs DOABA Steel Rolling Mills 2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC) (iii) Wherever abatement is permissible, that shall be allowed by the authority concerned in accordance with law. (iv) Since appellants have grievance of violation of natural justice, the authority shall do justice to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to prevent repetitive litigation. (v) Wherever determination of ACP arises, the authority with due regard to Rule 3 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 shall determine the same on the basis of materials on record and the appellants shall get proper opportunity of hearing to lead their defence in that regard. (vi) Since it i....