2015 (6) TMI 1021 - HC - Central Excise

Classification - Whether the furnace of the appellant is pusher type or batch type for determination of ACP (annual production capacity) for levying monthly liability - Report of the NISST was given to the assessee in advance. Assessee has not lead any rebuttal evidence in the form of any Chartered Engineer s Certificate - Primary authority has not only taken the report of the NISST, but also examined the annual production based on the declarations filed by the assessee itself and the claim of the assessee with regard to the nature of mill being run by it - Held that - the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the mill is low speed mill and the authorities treating it as high speed mill, fixed higher annual production capacity and demanded higher duty, cannot be countenanced. The questions of law framed for consideration form part of questions of fact, on which the primary authority has categorically recorded finding based on report of the technical committee and the same has been concurred by the appellate Tribunal and on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, we do not find any legal infirmity or irregularity to interfere with the same. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of furnace type for levy of duty liability under Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.

Analysis:
The appellant, involved in manufacturing hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel, filed declarations under the statute for determining the unit's annual capacity of production (ACP). Initially, the furnace was described as 'pusher type,' leading to a duty liability imposition. Subsequently, the appellant claimed the furnace was 'batch type,' filing a revised declaration. The Commissioner rejected this claim and confirmed the duty liability. The Customs, Excise, and Gold Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for re-verification of the furnace. The National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology (NISST) verified the furnace as 'pusher type,' leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim and the imposition of duty liability. The appellant contended that their furnace was 'batch type,' emphasizing the absence of automatic operations and specific mechanisms for high-speed mills, relying on relevant case laws.

The primary issue revolved around determining whether the furnace was 'pusher type' or 'batch type' for ACP calculation. The NISST certificate confirmed the furnace as 'pusher type,' citing a pusher mechanism and material movement inside the furnace during heating. The lower authorities considered the NISST report, the appellant's declarations, and the nature of the mill, concluding that the furnace was 'pusher type.' The appellant's arguments regarding the mill's speed and duty calculation were dismissed, as the evidence supported the furnace being 'pusher type.' The court upheld the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the technical committee's report and rejecting the appellant's contentions.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal basis to interfere with the authorities' decision. The technical report, NISST certificate, and record evidence supported the furnace being 'pusher type' for ACP determination. The court upheld the duty liability imposition based on the furnace classification, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding mill speed and duty calculation methodology. The judgment emphasized the importance of technical evidence and upheld the lower authorities' findings based on factual and technical assessments.