AKANSHA STEEL PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12-7-04 [2004 (172) E.L.T. 498 (Sett. Comm.)] passed by the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the petitioner's application S. A. (E) 510 of 2004 has been rejected.

(2.) We have heard Shri A. P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K.S. Raghuwansi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Shri Mathur, learned counsel submitted that the Settlement Commission has misdirected itself and illegally rejected the petitioner's application. According to Shri Mathur in paragraph 7 of the writ petition an averment has been made that as the actual production of the petitioner's factory was much less than the capacity of the production determined by the Commissioner, hence, it moved an application before the Commissioner to redetermine the duty liability of their factory as per their actual production in spite of the fact that they opted for payment of Central Excise Duty in terms of Rule 96ZO(3).