AVADH PVT. LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated facts of this case are as follows : -

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Alok Arora submits that the ground for denial of redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) is not sustainable in view of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings and Inder Steels P. Ltd. reported in 1999 (32) RLT 82 as also in view of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Prem Castings v. C.C.E. vide Final Order No. A/425/99 -NB (DB), dated 3 -6 -1999 in which the present Counsel had appeared. The said judgment in the case of Prem Castings has been delivered by the Bench relying on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings, supra. Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that having regard to the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunal this matter may also be remanded to the adjudicating authority directing him to redetermine the duty liability in terms of Section 3A(4) for the period 1 -9 -1997 to 31 -3 -1998.

(3.) LEARNED JDR, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava does not oppose the prayer in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Minakshi Castings. He, however, makes it clear that setting aside of the impugned order does not mean that the annual capacity determined by the Revenue on the basis of the appellants' own declaration regarding parameters of the machines involved will get set aside and they will have to pay duty on the basis of Rule 96ZP(1) for the current period i.e. for the period subsequent to 31 -3 -1998.