Annual production capacity must follow the actual furnace and mill configuration; batch furnace finding led to remand for reassessment.

Annual production capacity had to be determined on the basis of one furnace and two rolling mills, because the earlier remand finding that this configuration governed the assessment had attained finality and could not be reopened on a contrary basis. The furnace was held to be a batch type furnace, not a pusher type furnace, since a batch furnace is consistent with slow-speed rolling and the mill had already been treated as a slow-speed unit. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh determination of annual production capacity, duty liability, and consequential refund on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the annual production capacity of the appellant's unit was required to be determined by treating it as a unit having one furnace and two rolling mills and by applying the Board's guidelines for the higher-capacity mill; (ii) Whether the furnace installed in the appellant's premises was a batch type furnace or a pusher type furnace.

Issue (i): Whether the annual production capacity of the appellant's unit was required to be determined by treating it as a unit having one furnace and two rolling mills and by applying the Board's guidelines for the higher-capacity mill.

Analysis: The earlier remand finding had recorded that the appellant had two rolling mills but one furnace, and that the annual production capacity had to be fixed by applying the relevant Board guideline for a unit operating only one mill at a time. That finding had attained finality, and the capacity could not be reworked on a contrary basis in the second round.

Conclusion: The annual production capacity had to be determined on the basis of one furnace and two rolling mills, by applying the Board's guidelines.

Issue (ii): Whether the furnace installed in the appellant's premises was a batch type furnace or a pusher type furnace.

Analysis: A batch type furnace heats material in batches and is suited to slow-speed rolling, whereas a pusher type furnace is a continuous, higher-capacity furnace. In the earlier proceedings the rolling mill had been treated as a slow-speed mill. Following the same reasoning, the furnace could not be treated as a pusher type furnace and had to be regarded as a batch type furnace.

Conclusion: The furnace was held to be a batch type furnace and not a pusher type furnace.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh determination of annual production capacity, duty liability, and consequential refund entitlement on the basis of the findings recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of the furnace and the rolling mill capacity are determinative under the annual capacity scheme, a unit operating a slow-speed mill with one furnace cannot be assessed on the footing of a pusher type furnace, and capacity must be fixed in accordance with the applicable guideline for the actual operating configuration.

---