ADARSH STEEL ROLLING MILLS AND Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the sides agree that the very issue in both these appeals had come -up before the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Chandigarh -2001 (127) ELT 46 (Tribunal -Larger Bench) and the Larger Bench has taken a view that Rule 5 of Hot Rolling Steel Mills annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would be relevant and applicable in all cases where there is no change in the annual capacity of production of the annual capacity of production is augmented on account of change in the machinery of production. The rule however, will not be applicable when change in machinery leads to reduction in the annual capacity of production when the same is computed according to the parameters mentioned in Rule 3 of the said Rules.

(2.) SHRI R. Santhanam, Advocate further submits that this matter has come -up earlier before the Tribunal and was remanded with certain directions. He has however no objection for remand of the matter.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that this order was rendered by the Commissioner in November, 2000 while the Larger Bench decision is of December, 2000. Obviously, commissioner was not benefited with the Larger Bench decision aforesaid.