Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Arti Strips (P) Ltd., M/S. Bhagwati ... vs Cce, Chandigarh on 4 May, 2001
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In these four appeals, the common issue for our consideration is, whether the furnaces of the appellants were pusher type of batch type. The matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to re-examine the issue with the help of technical experts and in the light of the technical literature on the subject. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, had taken up the matter for re-examination and after the help of the technical experts passed a detailed speaking appealable order. He has duly taken note of the submissions by the re-rolling mills and had come to a decision that the furnaces were pusher type furnaces.
2. Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, submits that the furnaces of the appellants were batch type and they could not be considered as pusher type furnaces. They had placed their evidence before the adjudicating authority. He submits that the view taken by the adjudicating authority was not correct.
3. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, replied that the matter has been examined in detail by the adjudicating authority who had not only taken the help of the technical experts but had also analysed the matter with reference to the published authoritative technical books. He refers to the report from the technical expert in which there is a reference to various authoritative publications.
4. We find that this matter had once been remanded by the Tribunal. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that all relevant aspects of the matter have been discussed. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, who had adjudicated the matter had held that the re-heating furnaces in question had the characteristics similar to those of pusher type furnaces and that the notices had failed to produce any technical literature in support of their claim that their furnaces are batch type. They had failed to establish function of the furnaces in question to be as of batch type (refer para 39 of the impugned order).
5. We do not find that any material has been placed before us to disturb these findings of fact by the adjudicating authority. The matter relates to the facts and after due analysis the adjudicating authority had come to a definite considered view. We do not find any merit in these appeals and we confirm the view taken by the adjudicating authority and all these four appeals are dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)