ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee M/s. Nakoda Steel Mills Pvt. Ltd. with reference to the impugned order, dated 5-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 31/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-8-1997 as amended according to the annual production capacity of the unit.
4. Arguing for the appellant, Shri Jitender Singh, learned Counsel, submits that the Commissioner has determined the annual capacity of production observing that furnace was of pusher type. He submitted that item furnace is only batch type and not pusher. He contended that in support of the contention of the party a certificate by the Chartered Engineer was placed before him. He submits that as per Board’s Circular the Commissioner was required to take assistance from the technical authorities to ascertain whether furnace was batch type as claimed by the assessee or pusher type as per department. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahesh Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills and Others, and the Tribunal as per Order No. A/1141 to 1145/ 98-NB (SM), dated 28-10-1998 has remanded the matter directing the Adjudicating Authority to inspect the furnace with the assistance of some Technical Authorities to come to the conclusion whether the furnace is batch type furnace or pusher type furnace.
5. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned D.R. countering the arguments submitted that physical inspection was done in this case and particularly he drew our attention to para 3 of the show cause notice wherein it was charged that furnace was of only pusher type. He also submitted that Commissioner while arriving at the conclusion has considered the various technical literatures as can be seen from the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances, there is no necessity to remand the matter.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. There is some force in the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee that the Commissioner has determined the annual capacity arriving at the conclusion that furnace was of pusher type without any assistance/opinion of the Technical Authority. We are not convinced with the argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue that since the Commissioner has taken the note of the technical literature there was no necessity to take opinion from the technical expert. In the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner could have taken the opinion from the technical expert in arriving at the conclusion whether furnace was of a batch type or pusher type. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner to inspect the furnace with the assistance of technical authority/engineer who is well versed with the installation of the furnace to come to the conclusion whether furnace is batch type furnace or pusher type and to pass an order accordingly after providing an opportunity to the appellants.
7. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.