BALAJI STEEL ROLLING MILLS PVT. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE relates to determination of annual capacity. While determining the annual capacity, whether Rule 4 or 5 is to be applied is an issue to be considered herein.

(2.) IT was submitted on behalf of the party that the appellant opted for payment of duty under compound levy scheme covered by Section 3A of Central Excise Act read with Rule 96ZP. He said that the capacity of unit is to be determined as per the provisions of Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. He contended that since the appellants on 13.4.1998 effected the change in 'I' factor with the due permission of the Department, Rule 5 has an application in determining the annual capacity. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sawan Mai Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2001 (42) RLT 75 : 2001 (94) ECR 155 (T) wherein it was clearly held that Rule 5 is applicable when there is no change in annual capacity of production or it is augmented. He said that this view was also upheld by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Steel and Agrico Industries and Anr. v. UOI and Ors. as reported in 2002 (52) RLT 884 (Guj).

(3.) HEARD the Ld. DR for the Revenue.