9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel 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 - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - G. CHANDRAIAH AND CHALLA KODANDA RAM, JJ. For The Respondent : J. Saty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 16-9-1997, subsequently realining the mistake that the furnace is 'batch type' and not 'pusher type', filed revised declaration along with Chartered Engineer's Certificate for redetermination of duty liability. Based on the report of the Range Superintendent dated 19-5-1998, the Commissioner, by order dated 27-10-1998, rejected the claim of the assessee and ordered to treat the furnace of the assessee as 'pusher type' and duty liability as determined in order dated 16-9-1997 was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench Madras (for short 'CEGAT') in Final Order No. 581/1999. By order dated 17-3-1999, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is 'pusher type' and rejected by the claim of the assessee by Order (Original) No. C. Ex. 06/2000 dated 10-2-2000. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeal on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bengaluru. By the impugned order dated 23-8-2004, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that, as directed by the CEGAT in its remand order dated 17-3-1999, for determining the furnace as 'pusher type' two tests, are to be fulfilled viz., (1) that there should be a pusher mechanism, by which the charged material is pushed into the furnace and (2) that there should be movement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities without considering these aspects found that the assessee is having furnace with pusher type mechanism, thereby treating it as high speed mill and fixed higher annual production capacity and demanded higher duty. In support of this contention, the learned counsel also relied on the judgments reported in Surindra Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE 2003 (4) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI and V.V.S. Concast Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (139) ELT 81 (Tri. - Delhi). 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Excise, supporting the impugned order of the Tribunal, sought to dismiss the appeal. 5. This court admitted the appeal to consider the following questions of law : 1. Whether the order dated 23-8-2004 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material on record, it could be seen that the above report of the NISST was given to the assessee in advance and after affording personal hearing and as the assessee has not lead any rebuttal evidence in the form of any Chartered Engineer's Certificate, the authority below has categorically recorded finding on technical aspect that the subject furnace of the assessee is 'pusher type' and rejected the claim of the assessee. 8. Further from the material on record, it could be seen that the 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Association of India, Mandi Gobindgarh has certified that the most of steel re-rolling mills working in country are low speed mills and further explained that the small sized units have low furnace capacity which are box/batch type. But it is a general statement and nowhere it is mentioned that Sri R.P. Bhatia has physically inspected the mill of the assessee to declare their furnace is of batch type. And also the enclosure to Sri R.P. Bhatia's letter is irrelevant in the instant case since we are not entering into any debate also where by installing such pusher mechanism the production output of furnace could be doubled as envisaged in the formula of capacity assessment but we have to decide the type of furnace of the assessees on avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
