TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their induction furnace unit. The annual production capacity of their unit has been determined as 3.2 MT by the Commissioner through the impugned order. The plea of the appellants that though the size of crucible of the furnace is 3.2 MT but power load sanctioned to them is only 1300 KW instead of 1600 KW required for full capacity of 3.2 MT and as such, capacity should be determined as 2.6 MT, had not been accepted by the Commissioner. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that since the appellants did not had the full electricity power of 1600 KW required for the working of the furnace having 3.2 MT capacity, the ACP of their furnace, therefore, could not be determined as 3.2 MT, but should have been determined as 2.6 MT. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to pay duty on the basis of the ACP as determined by the Commissioner vide order dated 14-10-97, referred to above. However, they also filed appeal in the Tribunal against the order dated 14-10-97 of the Commissioner and the Tribunal sent back the case for de novo consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 7. After remand, the Commissioner afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and passed the impugned order. The only ground on which the determination of their capacity at 2.6 MT as against 3.2 MT fixed by the Commissioner through the impugned order, taken by the appellants, is that their unit has got sanctioned load of only 1300 KW, whereas the load required for utilisation of full capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as may be relevant for this purpose. The Commissioner may, if he so desires, consult any technical authority for this purpose". 9. In the instant case, admittedly, the full capacity of the furnace is 3.2 MT as per invoice of the supplier who supplied the furnace to the appellants. The appellants themselves had not denied this fact in their correspondence, referred to above, which they had with the Excise Department. The only plea taken by them is that since they had got sanctioned load of electricity less than the required one for utilisation of the full capacity of the furnace, the capacity of their furnace deserves to be determined as 2.6 MT. But their this plea on the face of it, is not maintainable, as in terms of sub-rules (2) and ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
