https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103708 Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not be applied unless the factual basis for treating the furnace as pusher type was properly established. The Tribunal found that the department had not satisfactorily displaced the appellants' expert evidence and had not adequately tested the technical material before fastening liability. Because the classification issue was unresolved on the available evidence, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with fresh expert examination and an opportunity for the appellants to respond. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:28:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103708 Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not be applied unless the factual basis for treating the furnace as pusher type was properly established. The Tribunal found that the department had not satisfactorily displaced the appellants' expert evidence and had not adequately tested the technical material before fastening liability. Because the classification issue was unresolved on the available evidence, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with fresh expert examination and an opportunity for the appellants to respond. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103708