2002 (12) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal rejected as Adjudicating Authority's order compliant with remand directions. Tribunal clarifies remand purpose.

The appeal was rejected as the Adjudicating Authority's order was found to be compliant with the remand directions. The Tribunal clarified that the remand ... Remand Issues:Capacity determination of induction furnace; Principles of natural justice violation; Formula correctness challenge; Compliance with remand order; Applicability of Rule 3(1) of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules.Capacity determination of induction furnace:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original regarding the capacity determination of an induction furnace. The appellant, a steel manufacturer, sought to modify the furnace capacity from 4 MT to 3 MT. The Commissioner determined the capacity at 3.64 MT, leading to a demand for Central Excise duty. The appellant contended that the capacity determination should consider factors beyond geometrical construction, such as slag allowance and quality of materials melted in the furnace. The appellant argued that the Department's formula for capacity determination was flawed and did not account for crucial variables affecting capacity accurately.Principles of natural justice violation:The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner due to a violation of natural justice principles in a previous order. The Commissioner's impugned order was challenged on the ground that the formula used did not consider all variables affecting capacity. The Commissioner, however, maintained that the methodology followed was based on expert-developed standards from technical institutes. The Department's methodology included measurements verified by independent witnesses and followed established technical standards.Formula correctness challenge and Compliance with remand order:The Tribunal clarified that the remand was not for challenging the correctness of the Department's formula but for ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The appellants acknowledged that there was no discrepancy between the Department's measurements and the engineering firm's specifications for the modified furnace. The Adjudicating Authority's order was deemed compliant with the remand directions, and no new challenges to the formula's correctness could be raised at this stage.Applicability of Rule 3(1) of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules:The Tribunal found that Rule 3(1) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, which refers to the manufacturer or trader's invoice for capacity determination, was not applicable in this case. Since the appellants initially installed a 4 MT furnace and later modified it, the invoice of the manufacturer or trader could not be the basis for determining capacity. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as the Adjudicating Authority's order was in compliance with the remand directions, and no merit was found in challenging the capacity determination.