Capacity determination under a deeming provision requires hearing and evidence on the actual function of disputed equipment components.

Capacity determination under the deeming provision for a stenter required examination of the actual function of the gallery and the closed space, because their inclusion depended on whether they formed part of the chamber capacity for drying or heat-setting. The affected party was therefore entitled to be heard and to adduce evidence before the Commissioner on those factual matters. Evidence on the function of the gallery and closed space was relevant to deciding whether the Explanation to Rule 5 applied, and had to be considered. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh determination after hearing the appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants were entitled to be heard before the Commissioner on the question of reckoning the gallery and the closed space for determining the capacity of the stenter; (ii) whether evidence regarding the function of the gallery and the closed space was relevant to decide whether they fell within the Explanation to Rule 5.

Issue (i): entitlement to a hearing before the Commissioner on the capacity-determination dispute.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the gallery attached to the stenter and the closed space between chambers were to be treated as part of the chamber capacity. Since the Board circular and the statutory Explanation under Rule 5 were relied upon to determine the levy, the appellants' contention required consideration of the factual nature and function of the equipment. The absence of an opportunity to place such material before the Commissioner would make the adjudication incomplete.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to a hearing before the Commissioner.

Issue (ii): whether evidence on the function of the gallery and the closed space was relevant for deciding if the Explanation to Rule 5 applied.

Analysis: The relevant inquiry was whether the gallery or the closed space participated in or aided the drying or heat-setting process so as to be covered by the deeming provision in the Explanation to Rule 5. Since that determination depended on evidence about the actual function of the equipment, the material tendered by the appellants was necessary for a proper decision.

Conclusion: Such evidence was relevant and had to be considered by the Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were sent back for fresh determination of capacity after giving the appellants an opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: Where capacity determination depends on whether equipment is covered by a deeming provision, the affected party must be given an opportunity to lead evidence on the actual function of the equipment before final adjudication.

---