1998 (12) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lls Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. A Chartered Engineer s certificate certifying the correctness of the declaration was also appended in each case. On the basis of the two documents, using the formula given in sub-rule (3) of the said Rule, the Commissioner, in identical orders, determined the annual capacity in MT per annum in the impugned orders. The number of utilised hours which was an important parameter in such determination, was taken as 2400 hours in each case on the assumption that the furnaces were of Pusher type . The assessees have filed these appeals against these orders determining the capacity. In each case, the submission is that the furnace installed in each unit was of the Batch type and not of the Pusher t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... these furnaces would be falling under the category of batch furnace. Request was made to depute technical experts for verification. He submitted that the Ministry of Finance had taken cognizance of similar letters written by such Associations in their letter dated 26-2-1998 bearing F. No. 345/40/97-TRU wherein certain clarifications had been given. The Commissioners were advised to examine the question of correct classification of the furnaces with the help and aid of technical authorities. The learned Advocate further referred to Chartered Engineer s certificates dated 28-12-1997 where in each case, referring to the Indian Standard, the Chartered Engineer had certified the furnaces to be of batch type. He stated that although the order me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... placed before him by the assessee but that he has to satisfy himself that the declaration is correct. If one of the parameters was declared by the assessee wrongly and if the Commissioner found on verification that the assessee was wrong, he was required to take that fact into consideration even if that would result in reduction of the capacity and resulting duty paid. Nothing in the orders states that a verification was made. We have noted that some verification was carried on by the Range officer. There is nothing on record to show what the verification was and whether the Range officer had the technical competence to conduct such verification. It is also doubtful whether the Commissioner could go by the report of the Range officer when t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X