TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that, all the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Ingots and Billets/ Non alloys steel Hot-re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which were notified under erstwhile Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the levy and payment of duty in respect of the goods governed by erstwhile Rule 96ZP and 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1994. Consequent upon introduction of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'said rules') vide Notification No. 32/97-CE (NT) dated 01.08.1997, issued under Section 3A ibid, the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e actual production of 1996-97 and confirmed the demand of differential duty along with interest and imposed penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the orders of Assistant Commissioner, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills - 2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC) and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills & upheld the demand of duty however, allowed the appeal for interest and penalty, therefore, the present appeals. 2. Shri J.C. Patel, ld. Counsel along with Shri Rahul Gajera appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in respect of all appeals this tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o) U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Knoria Industrial Limited -2001 (128) ELT 3 (SC) (p) CCE vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills -2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC) 3. Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute regarding redetermination of production capacity. The Tribunal has finally decided the issue of determination of the production capacity under Rule 4 on the basis of changed parameters and the matter was remanded to Assistant Commissioner only for a limited purpose of re-quantification of demand in accordance with the decision given by....