Manufacturer's invoice as primary basis for furnace capacity needs clarification where documents conflict and remand follows.

Rule 3(1) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 treats the manufacturer's invoice as the primary basis for determining furnace capacity; Rule 3(2) applies only when that invoice is unavailable. A separate certificate could not displace the invoice for capacity assessment. Where the invoice, technical data and manufacturer's certificate showed a material discrepancy, the record required clarification from the manufacturer before finalisation. The capacity determination was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after proper disclosure and testing of the evidentiary basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the annual capacity of the induction furnace was to be determined on the basis of the manufacturer's invoice under Rule 3(1) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. (ii) Whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication in view of the discrepancy between the invoice, the technical data, and the manufacturer's certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the annual capacity of the induction furnace was to be determined on the basis of the manufacturer's invoice under Rule 3(1) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.

Analysis: Rule 3(1) requires the manufacturer's invoice to be taken as the primary basis for ascertaining furnace capacity. Rule 3(2) comes into play only when such invoice is not available. A certificate issued by another body could not displace the invoice for the purpose of the rule.

Conclusion: The manufacturer's invoice was the relevant primary document under Rule 3(1), and the alternative certificate could not be treated as the governing basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication in view of the discrepancy between the invoice, the technical data, and the manufacturer's certificate.

Analysis: The invoice described the furnace model, while the manufacturer's certificate stated a lower crucible capacity and the technical data suggested a higher capacity under ideal conditions. The discrepancy called for clarification from the manufacturer, and the material basis for the capacity determination had not been adequately disclosed or tested before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for fresh decision after appropriate clarification and reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the capacity determination was set aside and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on a fresh basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rule makes the manufacturer's invoice the primary basis for capacity determination, but the record reveals a material discrepancy between contemporaneous manufacturer documents, the adjudication should not be finalised without obtaining clarification and giving a fair opportunity to address the basis of assessment.

---