ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. In this Appeal the dispute is on determination of the Annual Production capacity of re-rolling mill.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicants are re-rolling mill. They furnished figures for determination of the Annual Production Capacity of their re-rolling mill. In the Rules, there was a provision. In case, the annual capacity determined by the formula in sub rule (3) of Rule 3 in respect of a mill, is less than the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97, then the annual capacity so determined shall be deemed to be equal to the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97. The case of the appellant as contended by the ld. Counsel is that the parameters, especially ‘d’ factor was changed inasmuch as during the financial year 1996-97 the value of ‘d’ factor was 225 mm which was reduced to 203 mm and intimation thereof was sent on 1-9-97 though the change was effected on 30-7-97. Ld. Counsel contended that since 1996-97 financial year’s production was based on the higher ‘d’ factor i.e., 225 mm and therefore production was higher. Since during the current year, the ‘d’ factor was reduced to 203 mm, therefore, financial year 1996-97 actual production cannot be taken as the Annual Production Capacity for the financial year 1997-98 for the purpose of determining the Annual Production Capacity. Ld. Counsel referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Awadh Alloys (P) Ltd. v. CCE Meerut reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 719 (T) in support of his contention that last year’s production based on higher ‘d’ value cannot be taken if during the current year the ‘d’ value was reduced. It is therefore prayed by the appellants that last year’s production should not be the basis, in such circumstances for determination of annual production capacity for the succeeding year. Ld. Counsel therefore prays that the Appeal may be allowed.
3. Shri M.M. Dube, ld. DR submits that the ld. Commissioner has dealt with the intimation of the appellant sent on 1-9-97. He reiterated findings of the ld. Commissioner.
4. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the Rules provided that in case the Annual Production Capacity determined on the basis of various parameters happens to be less than that of actual production during the financial year 1996-97 then the annual production capacity shall be deemed to be equal to the actual production of the mill during the financial year 1996-97. However, we find that there are various factors and parameters for computing the Annual Production Capacity. In the instant case, we find that there is a change in the ‘d’ factor inasmuch as ‘d’ factor got reduced from 225 mm to 203 mm with effect from 30-7-97. Since the current year’s production capacity was based on the reduced ‘d’ factor therefore, this would normally lead to a figure less than the one when the ‘d’ factor was higher. Looking into the facts of the case that the issue was examined in detail in the light of various notifications issued in the case cited above. We hold that in the circumstances of the present case, last year’s actual production figures are not relevant. We therefore hold that the capacity of the re-rolling mill for the current year determined as 3051 M.Ts based on the parameters is the correct annual production capacity. In the circumstances, the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.