ORDER
D.N. Panda, Member (J)
1. Ld. Authorised Representative, appearing for the appellant submitted that although there was a specific direction by the Tribunal in terms of Order No. M-639/A-952/Cal/1999 dated 25.8.99 for determination of annual capacity of production and such determination to come into effect from the determined date, the authorities below failed to carry out such direction for which there was another litigation on the self same dispute. The second dispute was redressed by Tribunal’s Order No. S-631/A-863/Kol/05. Even after the second direction, the authorities have failed to pass (Sic) a reasoned and speaking order which compelled the appellant to approach again (Sic) this Tribunal in third round of litigation. He made it clear categorically that appellant’s factory did not undergo manufacturing w.e.f. 29.7.98, i.e. date of grant of issue of license and determination of annual capacity from that date would be unjust and unfair. Therefore, the date of production being 12.10.98, such date should be reckoned for the purposes of annual capacity determination and liability to follow accordingly. This has not been done even in spite of repeated direction. Hence, the order of adjudication dated 27.3.06 has no legs to stand. The ld. SDR appreciates the difficulties that the present litigation is third round of litigation. He is fair enough to state that although there were difficulties in the earlier occasion, the ld. Authorities below have determined the capacity in para 10 of the order. Therefore, the appellant should have no grievance further and no dispute arises out of the order dated 10.4.06.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. It is an admitted fact by both sides that the appellant has been compelled to approach the Tribunal in third round of litigation for self same cause and for inability of the authorities to redress the wrong done to the appellant. There is no doubt that the appellant commenced its production w.e.f. 12.10.98. The registration date may not be decisive to determine the annual capacity unless the entire plants commissioned undergoes production. Therefore, such circumstances can only be visualized on the date when the appellants (Sic) becomes ready for manufacture. Such date being 12.10.98, the appellant should no more be required to discharge duty liability from any other date (Sic) when there was a physical output production from 12.10.1998 so as to invite liability under the law. To resolve entire dispute persisting in record from 1999, it is no longer required to further ask the authorities to determine the annual capacity except without holding as above. Accordingly, appellant succeeds in appeal.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.