TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate, for the respondents. [Order per Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.] - The petitioner-Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of M.S Ingots falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 7206.90. The duty is chargeable to the petitioner-Company in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rules framed therein known as Induction Furnance Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') on the basis of annual production capacity of the Induction Furnance Unit. The petitioner filed declaration in respect of the furnance along with a certificate dated 7.9.1997 of the Chartered Engineer claiming therein that the capacity of the fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, respondent No.1 was justified in rejecting the plea of the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 3(2) of Induction Furnance Annual Capacity Determination Rule, 1997, are not attracted in the present case in view of the fact that the capacity of the furnance was reduced to 2.6 MT?" 3. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents have no authority in law to determine the capacity of the furnance at 3.2. MT ignoring the sanctioned power load and the certificate of the Chartered Engineer, since the technical parameters for determining capacity by making proper verification and measurement of the production and capacity thereof with reference to the furnance, cannot be ignored. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain the capacity of the furnances installed in the induction furnance unit on the basis of the capacity of comparable furnances installed in any other factory in respect of which the manufacturer's invoice or other document indicating the capacity of the furnance is available or, if not so possible, on the basis of any other material as may be relevant for this purpose. The Commissioner may, if he so desires, consult any technical authority for this purpose." 7. In the instant case, admittedly, as per invoice of the supplier who supplied the furnance to the assessee-petitioner, the full capacity of the furnance is 3.2. MT. The only plea taken by the petitioner is that the sanctioned load of the electricity is less than the required o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electricity cannot be made. The ground taken by the petitioner is not tenable, as it is for him to utilise the full capacity of the furnance for the production of their final product. Even otherwise, the question of law sought to be raised by the petitioner is a question of fact and in view of the admission of the assessee, the capacity of the furnance is 3.2 MT as per the invoice of the supplier, Rule 3(2) of the Rules is not attracted in the present case. 9. We find no error in the impugned orders of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. No question of law, much less substantial question, arises in the present petition and, thus, the petition being without merit is dismissed. 10. Ordered accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
