Concurrent factual findings on furnace classification sustained where technical evidence showed a pusher type mechanism and no rebuttal was produced.

Technical verification showed that the furnace had a pusher mechanism for feeding material and internal movement during heating, supporting classification as a pusher type furnace for assessing annual production capacity and monthly duty liability. The assessee received the report but produced no rebuttal technical evidence, while its own production declarations and the mill's functioning also supported the assessment. On those facts, the tribunal's concurrent finding that the furnace was pusher type was upheld, and the duty liability founded on that classification was sustained, with no legal infirmity or basis for appellate interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the furnace installed in the assessee's factory was a pusher type furnace or a batch type furnace for determining annual production capacity and monthly duty liability.

Analysis: The determination rested on technical verification by a specialised institute, whose report recorded both the existence of a pusher mechanism for feeding material into the furnace and movement of material inside the furnace during heating. The report was furnished to the assessee, who did not produce rebuttal technical evidence. The assessing authority also relied on the assessee's own production declarations and the factual assessment of the mill's functioning. The appellate tribunal concurred with the factual finding that the furnace was pusher type, and the High Court found no legal infirmity, irregularity, or basis to interfere with the concurrent factual conclusions.

Conclusion: The finding that the furnace was pusher type was upheld against the assessee, and the duty liability based on that finding was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings based on technical evidence, especially where uncontroverted by rebuttal material, do not warrant interference in appeal absent legal infirmity.

---