DHIMAN INDUSTRIES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the impugned Order -in -Original vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh has confirmed the duty . demand with penalty for the period September 1997 to September 1998 as detailed therein against the appellants.

(2.) The learned Counsel has contended that order dated 29.11.2000 determining the annual production of capacity of the mills, after the remand case by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.2000 of the appellants alongwith other noticees namely M/s Bhagwati Steel Industries, M/s Shri Guru Hargobind Steel Industries and M/s Baba Balak Nath Steels Ltd., was set aside vide order dated 20.9.2001 by the Tribunal as reported in Bhagwati Steel Industries and Ors. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2001 (136) ELT 1047 and as such, no differential duty could be confirmed against the appellants on its basis.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned JDR has not disputed that after setting aside of the order dated 29.11.2000 determining the annual capacity of the mills of the appellants alongwith the other assessees/noticees detailed above, no fresh order had been passed in that regard. He has however, simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.