2018 (3) TMI 1383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT ( Delivered by S. Manikumar, J. ) Instant civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the Final Order of CESTAT, Chennai dated 29.06.2009 made in Final Order No.797/2009, on the following substantial questions of law: " i) Whether Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in concluding that Rule 5 will not be applicable when there is change in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Central Excise, Coimbatore, on the basis of the particulars furnished by respondent No.1, as required by the above compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Later the respondent No.1 changed some of the parameters of the machinery for manufacturing of the above final products and requested the department to refix their ACP as per the revised parameters. Since the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uth Zonal Bench, Chennai that "Rule 5 of HRRSMACDR'97 will not be applicable when the change in the parameters results in reduction in the annual capacity or production and rule will be applicable in cases where there is no change in Annual Capacity of production or the Annual capacity of production is increased due to change in the machinery of production is not acceptable for the following r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... change in the parameters of the furnace. d) Further, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.08.2001 has dismissed the S.L.P. filed by the Steel Re-rollers Council, Erode in which the respondent No.1 is also one of the members, against the Hon'ble High Court order in W.A. No.2036 and 2037/2000 directing the members of the council to deposit a sum of R....