TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or short called "the Act") against the order 15.12.2003 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter called "the Tribunal" ) in Appeal No.E/730/2003-NB (A). (3) By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Raipur dated 8.4.2003. (4) So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether it involves any substantial question of law for its admission on merits. (5) Since the facts of the case are short so also the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing assessee's appeal, which has given rise to filing of this appeal it is apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated 15.12.2003 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention that they had disconnected power supply from one electric panel w.e.f. 1.11.97 thereby making it not possible to run both the crucibles at the same time. It has also been pointed out that not only the power supply from one panel had been cut, electric cables connecting through that panel had also been cut and sealed. The appellants have illustrated the position through the following diagrams : : (diagrams) The appellant had also submitted that these facts were known to the Central Excise authorities. 2. Under the impugned order, Commissioner, Central Excise has rejected the appellant's claim for treating the duty payable only in respect of one furnace and has held that duty is liable to be paid on the basis of instal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so submitted that the issue is no more open for argument inasmuch as the Apex Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. Venus Castings (P) Ltd - 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC) that a unit opting to pay duty under Rule 96ZO (3) will not be eligible for any claim for deduction on the basis of sub-section (3) and sub- section (4) of Section 3A. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant had two furnaces or crucibles of 3 MT capacity. Appellant had also opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3). The measure for compounding laid down under Induction Furnace Rules is the annual capacity and not the actual capacity utilized. Therefore, the appellant's claim for reduction in duty liability based on the fact that they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akh every month towards full discharge of duty liability in respect of 3 MT capacity furnace .The appellant opted to pay duty by taking recourse to this mode of payment for the period in question i.e. 1.9.97 - 31.3.2000. (8) The appellant had however disputed their capacity determination made by the authorities of their furnaces. According to them, out of their two furnaces, only one furnace was functioning at the relevant time, whereas, the other one was not functioning and remained idle through out and hence, the installation of one which remained idle could not be taken into consideration while determining their annual capacity. In other words, their basic contention was that though they have installed 2 furnaces each having 3 M.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Central Excise and then, the Tribunal had concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the appellant was at the relevant time not only opted for payment of the duty on the basis of their two furnaces and further, both were found in operation, then, such finding being pure finding of fact and being concurrent in nature, was binding on this Court and lastly, such finding of fact could not be regarded as such that it was either perverse to its extreme or against the evidence on record or against any provision of law so as to constitute any substantial question of law for admitting this appeal on such question. (12) We have noticed that the appellant had come out with one factual explanation as to how and why they said ....