MINAKSHI CASTINGS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed by the appellants M/s. Minakshi Castings and M/s Inder Steels Pvt. Ltd. involving common issues and they are therefore taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THESE two matters are coming before the Tribunal for a second time. The issue relates to determination of annual capacity of production in terms of Section 3A of the Act. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots of non -alloy steel falling under Tariff Heading 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These two matters were remanded by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication with the direction that the learned Commissioner will give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants to represent their case by furnishing figures of actual production and also for passing speaking order in accordance with law, since the parties have pleaded before the Tribunal that no opportunity was given before determining the annual capacity or production and actual production was not determined as envisaged under Sub -section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Sub -section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act is as under : -

(3.) ON remand the Commissioner in the impugned order of Appeal E/3229/98 -NB filed by M/s. Minakshi Castings observed that, however, no figures of actual production have been supplied by the assessee in any of the submissions made by them. Even otherwise the assessee has opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3) and in terms of this Rule the party cannot avail of the benefit under Sub -section (4) of Section 3A. In the appeal filed by M/s. Inder Steels Pvt. Ltd. the Commissioner in the impugned order observed that the guidelines of remand in these de novo proceedings are as follows : -