Rule 96ZO(3) explanation on induction furnace units was material to levy applicability and justified rehearing on merits.

The Explanation to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules was treated as material to the levy question because it clarified that sub-rule (3) did not apply to an induction furnace unit ordinarily producing castings or stainless steel products but incidentally producing non-alloy steel ingots and billets. The Tribunal considered this clarification relevant to determining whether the levy scheme applied during the disputed period. On that basis, the rectification request succeeded, and the final order was recalled for rehearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Explanation to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules was material for deciding the rectification application and warranted recall of the final order.

Analysis: The application sought rectification on the ground that the earlier final order had not taken into account the Explanation to Rule 96ZO(3), which clarified that sub-rule (3) did not apply to an induction furnace unit ordinarily producing castings or stainless steel products but incidentally producing non-alloy steel ingots and billets. The Tribunal accepted that the Explanation was material to the controversy and relevant to determination of the levy scheme's applicability during the disputed period.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed and the final order was recalled for rehearing on merits.

---