2018 (10) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Levy Scheme. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of notified goods during the period i.e. March 1998. Their annual capacity of production was determined earlier by the competent authority under the said scheme. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal accepted the version of the appellants that they were liable to pay duty on actual production basis in terms of sub- Section 4 to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and this Tribunal remanded the matter back for redetermination of the duty liability. After the remand, the adjudicating authority again determined the duty liability in terms of Section 3A (2) of the Act and did not comply with the direction of thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uitable order after providing an opportunity to the assessee. In these circumstances, we find that the assessee has made a claim in terms of sub-Section 4 to Section 3A for such re-assessment and there is no finding by the adjudicating authority whether such reassessment has been done in terms of sub-Section 4 to Section 3A. In view of this deficiency, we are remanding these three matters to the Jurisdictional Commissioner to redetermine the duty payable by the assesses with reference to the actual production as specified in sub-Section 4 and to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the appellant in all these cases." and thereafter again matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority vide order dated 11.08.2005....