Installed-capacity duty under compounded levy remains binding; idle furnace plea does not justify abatement where factual findings are concurrent.

An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act could not proceed where the challenge raised only disputed factual questions, because concurrent findings showed two 3 MT furnaces were installed and duty was payable on that basis. Under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, duty under the compounded levy scheme is determined by installed capacity, not actual utilisation, so the plea that one furnace was idle or disconnected did not justify abatement or a different computation. An assessee who opts for that scheme remains bound by its capacity-based method of assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal under Section 35G disclosed any substantial question of law for admission, and (ii) whether duty under the compounded levy scheme could be determined on the basis of only one furnace on the plea that the other furnace was idle.

Issue (i): whether the appeal under Section 35G disclosed any substantial question of law for admission.

Analysis: The appeal was under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, and the Court could interfere only if a substantial question of law arose. The concurrent factual finding of the Commissioner and the Tribunal was that two furnaces of 3 MT capacity each were installed and that duty was payable on that basis. The assessee's challenge was directed essentially to the factual assertion that one furnace was not functioning, which was not open to reappreciation in such an appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the appeal was not admissible on merits.

Issue (ii): whether duty under the compounded levy scheme could be determined on the basis of only one furnace on the plea that the other furnace was idle.

Analysis: Under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the assessee had opted to pay duty at the compounded rate applicable to a 3 MT furnace. The scheme proceeded on annual installed capacity, not on actual utilisation. The Court also relied on the principle that an assessee who opts for payment under Rule 96ZO(3) cannot seek abatement or a different mode of computation under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The plea that one furnace was disconnected or idle did not displace the installed-capacity basis adopted by the authorities.

Conclusion: Duty was correctly determined on the basis of two installed furnaces, and the assessee was not entitled to reduction or abatement on the pleaded facts.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because it raised only disputed questions of fact and the duty liability under the compounded levy regime had to be worked out on installed capacity. The dismissal of the appeal left the orders of the revenue authorities intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 35G, concurrent findings on installed capacity and furnace operation that raise only factual disputes do not give rise to a substantial question of law, and an assessee who opts for duty under Rule 96ZO(3) is bound by the compounded levy basis and cannot seek abatement on actual production grounds.

---