2018 (9) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dmitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in its finding that non-operation of the furnaces is to be taken into account while determining the ACP of the factory afresh, when Central Excise Rule 96ZO categorically rules that the relevant factor is only factory's closure for a particular period i.e. 7 days or more and not the nonfunctional of one or more furnaces? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in not distinguishing the distinct application of Rule 96ZO Central Excise Rules and Rule 3 of the Annual Capacity Determination Rules which operates on different factors? (iii) Whether CESTAT is correct to allow the appeal of the assessee, setting a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctional Commissioner under Rule 3 of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (IFACD Rules). Based on the declaration furnished by the assessee, the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) of the factory was fixed by the Commissioner. In the interregnum, the assessee was paying the duty on the basis of the ACP determined by them. While doing so, they had excluded the period during which the furnaces were not in operation. This has resulted in issuance of show cause notice which was adjudicated and the demand made in the show cause notice was confirmed. 6. The assessee challenged the order before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, having found that the order was in violation of the principles of natural justice, remanded th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Revenue has filed the present appeal on account of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Steel Casting (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2000 (125) E.L.T. 1243 (Tribunal)]. It is submitted that the said order was put to challenge by the said assessee by filing a writ petition in W.P.Nos.14676 of 2000 and 22656 of 2001 and the Court, vide its order dated 16.09.2010, set aside the order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision in view of Rule 96ZO(3) and other applicable provisions. 9. Considering the above submissions, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant case, as the dispute raised by the department is in a very narrow campus. On a readin....