https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270731 Technical verification showed that the furnace had a pusher mechanism for charging material and internal movement of material during heating, supporting classification as a pusher type furnace. The report was supplied to the assessee, but no rebuttal technical evidence was produced. The authority also relied on the assessee's own declarations, actual production figures, and the nature of the mill before concluding on the available material that the furnace was pusher type for purposes of annual production capacity and monthly duty liability. The appellate Tribunal agreed with that factual finding, and the challenge to the capacity and duty determination failed. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:52:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270731 Technical verification showed that the furnace had a pusher mechanism for charging material and internal movement of material during heating, supporting classification as a pusher type furnace. The report was supplied to the assessee, but no rebuttal technical evidence was produced. The authority also relied on the assessee's own declarations, actual production figures, and the nature of the mill before concluding on the available material that the furnace was pusher type for purposes of annual production capacity and monthly duty liability. The appellate Tribunal agreed with that factual finding, and the challenge to the capacity and duty determination failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270731