TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 5-2-2002: "Whether CEGAT has erred by relying upon the statement of the partner of the factory that the factor 'd' was changed w.e.f. first week of Nov., 1997 whereas there is a substantial proof that the factor 'd' was changed w.e.f. 1-10-97 as there was a sudden increase in the production w.e.f. 10/97 which was attributable due to change in factor 'd' and reducing the penalty from Rs. 24 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs." 2. The assessee had two Rolling Mills 'A' and 'B' run by a single electric motor and single fly wheel with following 'd', 'n' and 'I' parameters : Rolling Mill Rolling Mills 'A' 'B' 'd' parameter 275 mm 350 mm 'n' parameter 735 rpm 735 rpm 'I' parameter 0.19 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olling mill 'B' from 350 mm to 450 mm in the first week of November, 1997 and did not give any intimation to the revenue about this change because they were not aware of any such requirement. On 11-3-1998 the partner had further stated that the assessee did not have purchase bill regarding the purchase of pinion stand of 405 mm 'd' parameter. He also stated that pinions of the stand were manufactured by their employees in their factory itself from their old rough rolls and no separate expenditure was incurred by them. He produced copies of their RT12 returns for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98, declaration dated 26-9-1997 filed under Rule 96ZP(3) of the 1944 Rules. The total quantum of rolled steel products manufactured by them during the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in terms of Rule 5 of the Determination Rules, 1997. It was further found that any change in factor 'd' was required to be intimated to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise as per Rule 5 of the Determination Rules, 1997 but the assessee has changed factor 'd' without intimating the same to the jurisdictional Commissioner. In that regard reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Sushil Mittal, partner and Gurdeep Singh, Foreman. The Assessing Authority also rejected the argument that the change in factor 'd' to mill 'B' has to be made from the September, 1997 and not from November, 1997 because the computed levy was levied w.e.f. 1-10-1997 and even the production of mill 'B' has gone up from September, 1997. On the basis of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bruary, 1997 would show that there was sudden increase in production which is explainable to the increase in 'd' factor without intimating the same to the department. According to the learned counsel the adjudicating authority has rightly drawn an inference from the aforesaid table and the findings must have been restored. 8. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel for the assessee has argued that there is no question of increase in production on account of variation of 'd' factor. He has drawn our attention to the table to submit that it is incorrect to say that the production has started increasing only from September, 1997 onwards and pointed out that there was big jump in production in the month of June which was far less in the month o....