9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production of the furnace as 6982.4 M.T. by taking the capacity of the furnace as 2.182 MT. The said finding of the Adjudicating Authority as regards the capacity of the furnace is dependent upon the manufacturer s invoice indicating the type of furnace as ITM 3/1250. When this type of furnace is read along with manufacturer s technical data annexed with the invoice, the same shows the capacity as 2.182 MT. The Adjudicating Authority has observed that in terms of provisions of Rule 3 of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, it is the manufacturer s invoice which has to be made the basis for arriving at the total capacity of the furnace installed in the factory. As such, he has not found favour with the other evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace can never be achieved and the same, as reflected in the technical data, is only maximum capacity shown under ideal condition and not a practical capacity. 3. After carefully considering the submission made by the appellants duly represented by Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate and by the Revenue represented by Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR we find that the Commissioner has rightly observed that in terms of Rule 3 of sub-rule (1) of the Rules in question, it is the manufacturer's invoice which has to be made the basis for ascertaining the capacity of the furnace. The sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is applicable only when the invoice as mentioned in sub-rule (1) is not available. As such the appellant s reference to the certificate given by Nati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riving at the capacity. In these circumstances, we are left with no other option but to once again remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision in the light of our discussions as above. 5. We also find that the Commissioner in his impugned order has referred to the appellant s declaration dated 1-9-1997 intimating the capacity of the furnace as 2.8 MT and making a request to the Commissioner to fix annual capacity accordingly. However, in their appeal memo the appellants have referred to their declaration dated 1-9-1997 submitting that they declared the capacity of the furnace as 1.6 MT to 1.8 MT. They have also produced on record two declarations showing capacity as 1.6 MT to 1.8 MT. There is no reference in the mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
