https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181829 Technical verification showed that the furnace had a pusher mechanism for feeding material and internal movement during heating, supporting classification as a pusher type furnace for assessing annual production capacity and monthly duty liability. The assessee received the report but produced no rebuttal technical evidence, while its own production declarations and the mill's functioning also supported the assessment. On those facts, the tribunal's concurrent finding that the furnace was pusher type was upheld, and the duty liability founded on that classification was sustained, with no legal infirmity or basis for appellate interference. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:26:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181829 Technical verification showed that the furnace had a pusher mechanism for feeding material and internal movement during heating, supporting classification as a pusher type furnace for assessing annual production capacity and monthly duty liability. The assessee received the report but produced no rebuttal technical evidence, while its own production declarations and the mill's functioning also supported the assessment. On those facts, the tribunal's concurrent finding that the furnace was pusher type was upheld, and the duty liability founded on that classification was sustained, with no legal infirmity or basis for appellate interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181829