Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Konark Steel Industries (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 March, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.Ex.Ap.620/2006
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.C.No.V(30)32/Tech/B-II/1998/15542A dated 06/09.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-II.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
HONBLE SHRI S.K. GAULE, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s. Konark Steel Industries (P) Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & S.Tax, Bhubaneswar-II
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant & Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K.Sharma, Authorised Representative(JDR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Honble Shri S.K. Gaule, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing:- 01.03.2011 Date of Pronouncement :- 01.03.2011 ORDER NO.
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the order dated 06/09.10.2006 whereby it was informed to the Appellant that the request for re-determination of annual capacity does not arise at this stage. The contention of Appellant is that the Appellant filed declaration for determination of their production capacity of the rolling mill under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The same was determined as per the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Thereafter Appellant made a request for re-determination on the ground that their parameters of the mill were not correctly taken.
3. The contention of Revenue is that the request for re-determination has been rejected as conveyed by the Superintendent of Central Excise vide a letter dated 06.06.2001. After this Appellant again asked for the same relief which was rejected by the present impugned letter.
4. The contention of Appellant is that in response to their request for re-determination the Superintendent of Central Excise vide letter dated 28.04.1999 informed the Appellant that the determination of parameter-d is possible only when the mill is in operation. Thereafter Appellant vide letter dated 08.04.2000 informed the revenue authorities regarding re-start of their mill. The contention is that thereafter no opportunity of hearing was granted and their request was declined.
5. In these circumstances as Appellant asked for re-determination of their capacity of their mill and the same was under consideration as per the correspondence between the parties and no opportunity of hearing was granted before rejecting the request hence the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise is directed to pass an appropriate order on the request of re-determination of the annual capacity after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
6. Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/ sd/ (S.K. GAULE) (S.S.KANG) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) VICE PRESIDENT sm 3 Appeal No.Ex.Ap.620/2006