9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that, the appellants were operating a hot steel re-rolling mill and engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non alloy steel which were chargeable to duty upto 31.03.2000 in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 31/97-CE (NT) dated 01.08.1997. They had opted to pay duty on lump-sum basis in terms of Rule 96ZP of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 according to the Annual Production Capacity of the unit. Whereas applying the formula as provided under Rule 3(3) of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (in short the Rules), according to the annual capacity of the unit was finally determined by the Commissioner for both the units was fixed as 25584.558 MT p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter considering the contention of the appellant in the remand proceedings, held that appellant has installed the Furnace of Pusher type and applying the formula under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, ACP was required to be re-determined. Against the said orders, and the order of rejection of refund claim, the appellant is before us. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is having one Furnace and two mills. In that circumstance, the unit which is having more production capacity is to be taken for determining ACP. 5. The second issue to be decided is, as to whether the Furnace installed in the premise of the appellant is Batch type or Pusher type. The claim of the appellant is that the Furnace is of Batch type and not Pushe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is having two rolling mills but one Furnace. Therefore, their ACP was required to be determined by taking into consideration the above referred guidelines as per the Board Circular dated 26.02.1998. As the order of this Tribunal, holding that the appellant is having two rolling mills but one Furnace has attained finality, in that circumstance, the production capacity is required to be determined holding that appellant was having two rolling mills but one furnace. Further, we take note of the fact that the second issue raised before us is that whether the Furnace installed by the appellant was Batch type or Pusher type. A similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Surendra Steel Rolling Mills (Supra), wherein this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examine as to whether the Pusher Type furnace could work with the slow/low speed rolling mill or not. Even when he was cross-examined in this regard, he did not offer any satisfactory explanation and simply stated that he was appointed to determine the only type of furnace and not the type of rolling mill. For determining the type of furnace, he was required to see the type of rolling mill also which the appellants were having. When their mill was slow/low speed, it could only work with the batch type furnace and not pusher type." 8. We find that Batch type Furnace is always slow in heating because the material is heated batch-wise whereas the Pusher type Furnace is always high capacity furnace wherein the material is heated continuously a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
