Pusher type furnace classification upheld on factual evidence and technical literature supporting the installation's design and function.

The furnace was treated as a pusher type furnace for excise duty purposes because the factual record showed a pusher mechanism consisting of a moving screw driven by an electric motor and gear box on a platform, moving raw material into the furnace on rails. Technical literature supported that characterization, and no rebuttal evidence was produced. On that basis, the classification as a pusher type furnace was upheld and the challenge to the finding failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the furnace installed by the appellant was to be treated as a Batch type furnace or a Pusher type furnace for the purpose of excise duty determination, and whether the impugned factual finding suffered from any infirmity.

Analysis: The Commissioner recorded a factual finding that the appellant had installed a pusher mechanism in the form of a moving screw operated through an electric motor and gear box, mounted on a platform, by which raw material moved into the furnace on rails. That finding was supported by technical literature relied upon to determine the nature of the furnace. No evidence was produced to rebut that finding.

Conclusion: The classification of the furnace as a Pusher type furnace was upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---