https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97830 The technical finding that the furnace was a pusher type furnace was upheld because the adjudicating authority had inspected the unit with technical experts and relied on supporting technical material, and no contrary material displaced that conclusion; the fixation of annual capacity and the resulting duty demand were therefore confirmed. However, where the adjudication order was applied to four show cause-cum-demand notices, the affected parties were entitled to an opportunity to reply and be heard before a speaking appealable order was passed; absence of that opportunity required de novo consideration on that limited aspect, and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. en-us Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:29:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97830 The technical finding that the furnace was a pusher type furnace was upheld because the adjudicating authority had inspected the unit with technical experts and relied on supporting technical material, and no contrary material displaced that conclusion; the fixation of annual capacity and the resulting duty demand were therefore confirmed. However, where the adjudication order was applied to four show cause-cum-demand notices, the affected parties were entitled to an opportunity to reply and be heard before a speaking appealable order was passed; absence of that opportunity required de novo consideration on that limited aspect, and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97830