OM METALS AND MINERALS LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee has come up against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 23.12.2003 to the extent he has imposed penalty and demanded interest. We find the view taken by the Commissioner quite strange.

(2.) The Commissioner had initially determined the annual production capacity of the appellant's unit by order dated 29.9.97 at 9600 MT. The above order was successfully challenged by the assessee before this Tribunal. By order dated 9.9.99 case was sent back to the Commissioner for re -determination. On second time the Commissioner re -determined the capacity at 9600 PMT under order dated 21.1.2000. This order was also set aside by this Tribunal under final order dated 5.9.2000 directing the Commissioner to re -examine the capacity. Therefore, the Commissioner passed order dated 7.2.2002. It was also set aside by this Tribunal under order dated 4.9.2002. The case was. again sent back and therefore, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 5.1.2004.

(3.) The Commissioner determined the annual capacity as claimed by the assessee. He also found duty liability on the basis of the annual capacity determined had been already paid by the assessee at the time of clearance of goods and therefore, there is no question of any differential duty. After holding as above the Commissioner proceeds to find as follows: