ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. Shri Amit Awasthi,Advocate submits that in both these appeals the matter relates to the redetermination of the capacity under the provisions of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 as amended by Notification No.45/97-CE(NT)dated 30.8.97 and that the matter is covered by the Tribunal decision in the group of appeals disposed of vide Final Order No.A/129-133/2001-NB(DB) dated 14.2.2001. He prays that the matter be remanded for reexamination in the light of the Tribunal’s aforesaid order.
2. Shri M.M.Dubey, JDR submits that the order recorded by the Tribunal is per incuriam as it has not taken into account a number of relevant factors which were submitted before the Tribunal by the Departmental Representative. In particular he referred to the provisions of Rule 3(b)_ of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts on record. We find from the order of the Commissioner that the appellants vide their letter dated 16.11.99 had intimated that they had installed on 1.6.99 two new stands of 158 mm as IVth drive. They had sought permission to change the value of ‘do’ of their intermediary rolling stand from 200 mm to 203 mm. It is also seen that the necessary permission was accorded vide letter dated 6.1.2000 with certain directions. In the order the Commissioner had come to a finding that there had been no change in the mill and that the technique for change applied to reduce the ‘d’ by means of wobbler was only cosmetic in nature and not real. The learned advocate has submitted before us that these were the very facts which were before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had held that it was the centre distance of the pinion in the pinion stand which was material in such circumstances and that the decrease in the ‘d’ annual capacity of production will have to be redetermined on the reduced value ‘of’. Without making any observations with regard to the specific facts in the present of justice if the matter be remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to re-examine the matter in the light of the aforesaid decision. Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate has no objection for remand of the matter.
4. As a matter of judicial propriety it is not possible for this Bench to differ with the view of the Tribunal and as such the submissions made by the learned DR cannot be acceded to.
5. In view of the above discussion, the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise and the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
6. Cross-objections are also disposed of accordingly.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.