1999 (3) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay application for operation of Order-in-Original regarding classification of furnace as 'Pusher Type' instead of 'Batch Type'.

Analysis:
The Stay application was filed to halt the operation of the Order-in-Original that designated the furnace as 'Pusher Type' and rejected the claim of it being 'Batch Type'. The applicants requested a decision on merits and sought a stay or remand for reevaluation by a competent technological institute. They argued that the Commissioner's decision lacked a technological basis as it relied on an inspection report by a Superintendent not technically qualified in the area.

The Respondent, represented by the JDR, contended that the inspecting Superintendent was technically qualified due to prior engineering background and association with an Institute of Steel Technology inspection team. They argued that the Order-in-Original was valid based on the inspection report.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision was based on the presence of a mechanical appliance using screw type technology in the furnace, leading to classification as 'Pusher Type'. Referring to past cases, the Tribunal ordered a stay of the original order and proceeded to consider the appeal.

In a previous order, the Tribunal outlined tests to differentiate between Batch and Continuous (Pusher Type) furnaces, emphasizing the presence of a pusher mechanism and movement of materials inside the furnace for the latter. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner only applied the first test and remanded the matter for reevaluation, instructing the Original authority to consider both tests, allow evidence from the appellants, and conduct re-verification if necessary. The Order-in-Original was set aside for reconsideration, granting the appeal by remand with specific directions for further assessment.