BELLARY STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. CCE, BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bellary Steel Rolling Mills is whether Rule 4 of the Hot Re -rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is applicable when the parameters have been changed by the appellants or the Annual Capacity has to be determined in terms of Rule 5 as has been done by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Ld. Advocate mentioned that the entire amount of duty has been paid by them and if their appeal is allowed, the refund will be due to them. In view of this the stay application is dismissed as infructuous and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing.

(2.) LD . Advocate Shri B.V. Kumar submitted that they had moved an application for Re -determination of their Annual Capacity of Production on account of certain changes effected by them in their 16 Inches Mill and that it has not been disputed by the Ld. Commissioner that the changes were effected in 16 Inches Mill by them. However, following Rule 5 of the Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rule, the Commissioner has fixed their production at the level of 1996 -97. Ld. Advocate submitted that the matter stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Awadh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Meerut as in, 1999 (112) ELT 719 (Trib) wherein it was held that in the case of change of parameters, Rule 5 will not fee the relevant clause for determination of Annual Capacity of production.