Pusher type furnace classification upheld on technical evidence, affecting annual production capacity and monthly duty liability.

Technical verification showed that the furnace had a pusher mechanism for charging material and internal movement of material during heating, supporting classification as a pusher type furnace. The report was supplied to the assessee, but no rebuttal technical evidence was produced. The authority also relied on the assessee's own declarations, actual production figures, and the nature of the mill before concluding on the available material that the furnace was pusher type for purposes of annual production capacity and monthly duty liability. The appellate Tribunal agreed with that factual finding, and the challenge to the capacity and duty determination failed.

---

---

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

Analysis: The determination rested on technical verification by the National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology, whose certificate recorded both the existence of a pusher mechanism for charging material into the furnace and movement of material inside the furnace while heating. The report had been supplied to the assessee, but no rebuttal technical evidence was produced. The authority below also considered the assessee's own declarations, actual production figures, and the nature of the mill, and concluded on the available material that the furnace was pusher type. The appellate Tribunal concurred with that finding, and the issue was treated as one primarily of fact based on technical evidence.

Conclusion: The finding that the furnace was pusher type was upheld, and the assessee's challenge to the annual production capacity and duty determination failed.

---