Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Coromandel Steel Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/1026/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.30/2003 dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Coromandel Steel Products Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 26.10.2010 Date of Decision: 26.10.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether the assessees furnace is a pusher type furnace or a batch type furnace according to the assessees they have installed batch type furnace while the Revenue treats the furnace as a pusher type furnace and the Commissioner refixed the ACP treating the furnace as a pusher type furnace.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that one team of technical experts / departmental officials had verified the furnace and two of the members of the committee stated that the furnace was a batch type furnace while two others stated that it was a pusher type furnace. Show-cause notice was issued proposing revision of the ACP treating the furnace as pusher type furnace; the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the proposal in the notice; the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1764 & 1765/2001 dated 12.10.2001 remitted the case for fresh consideration with a direction that the Commissioner should take fresh opinion by getting the furnace examined through experts. A committee of technical experts consisting of Dr. S. Srikanth, Scientist-in-charge, National Metallurgical Laboratory, Chennai, Dr. A. Rajadurai, Assistant Professor, Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Anna University, Chennai and Shri U.V. Acharya, Assistant General Manager (Operations), Hot Rolling Mill, Salem Steel Plant, Salem, was constituted by the Commissioner; expert committee inspected the furnace in the presence of Shri K. Natarajan, Superintendent of Central Excise and Sh Harish Kumar Shanghi, representative of the assessee and submitted a detailed report that the furnace was a pusher type. The assessees were permitted to cross-examine Dr. S.Srikanth who maintained his stand that the furnace was a pusher type. The Commissioner relied upon the unanimous opinion of the expert committee to conclude that the furnace was a pusher type furnace and confirmed the ACP of the re-rolling mil as 3045 MTs and the duty liability as Rs.76,125/- per month in terms of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This finding is under challenge by the assessees.
3. We reproduce herein below the unanimous opinion of the expert committee:-
8. In the unanimous opinion of the expert Committee, the furnace installed at the assessees mill is to be classified as a Single Zone end charge, side discharged manually controlled Pusher type re-heating Furnace. The Pusher moves through a screw mechanism powered by an electric motor and motion transmitted through a gear-box. This is one of the early designs of usher type furnace with manual / pusher charging and manual discharging of material. The push or indexing time and dwell time has been designed based on the requirements for the continuous hot rolling operation. The above furnace cannot be considered to be a batch type furnace because, by definition, in a batch type furnace, the charged material has to remain in a fixed position on the hearth until heated to the rolling temperature (no bodily movement of the charge during the heating process). Further, generally in batch type furnace, the temperature at any particular time is approximately the same in all parts of the charge (material in the hearth) and at the end of each heating cycle, there usually some idle time (between the discharge and the charging of the next batch) not available for productive work. None of the requirements of the batch type furnace is met in the present case. In the present case, the furnace is not empty between the discharge and the charging operations. In a Pusher type furnace, a continuous line of material is pushed over skids. The charge enters at one location and is moved progressively through the furnace to a discharge location. During stabilised operation, the temperature of the furnace varies from one part of the furnace to another, but does not change with time; the material goes through its heating cycle by moving from the cold end of the furnace to the hot end. Further, there is no idle time in the pusher type furnace except for periodic repairs or during shut down. In a pusher type furnace, the push or indexing time, and dwell time is designed to provide a constant flow of parts for the subsequent rolling operation. In the present case, these criteria are fulfilled by the furnace. Technical literature on batch type and pusher type reheating furnaces taken from one of the authentic hand book of iron and steel, Making, Shaping Treating of Steel, 10th edition, Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, 1985 is given in Appendix III The Committee, on the above basis unanimously opined that the re-heating furnace seen at M/s. Coromandel Steel Products is of the Pusher type.
4. The Commissioner has considered all the technical materials including the report to arrive at the conclusion that the furnace is a pusher type. As regards the opinion of Dr. L. Vijayaraghavan relied upon by the assessees, he has found that he had belatedly changed his earlier opinion and that too at the behest of the assessees and therefore his opinion lacked credibility. He has also rejected the opinion of Dr. Sethumadhavan on the ground that he had earlier observed that the furnace was a batch type as against Dr. L. Vijayaraghavans earlier opinion which was of pusher type furnace and further Dr. Sethumadhavans opinion was given at the back of the Department. The assessees have not been able to rebut or controvert the expert opinion with reference to any technical material. There is no reason why the unanimous opinion of the expert committee to the effect that the furnace in the assessees mill has a pusher type furnace should be disregarded. The opinion is a detailed one and the committee has given reasons as to why the furnace cannot be considered as a batch type furnace and why it can be considered only as a pusher type furnace. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to depart from the expert opinion on the type of furnace installed in the assessees mill and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
2