- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the assessee proposing following substantial questions of law: i) Whether closure of one induction furnace out of two induction furnaces in a unit entitles the assessee for abatement claim when all the conditions as prescribed are fulfilled by the assessee ii) Whether the word 'factory' means all the induction furnaces installed in a unit by the assessee or it may means to one or more than one induction furnaces as the case may be iii) Whether the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3) (2) of the Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 entitles he assessee to abatement claim iv) Whether the tribunal was right in rejecting the abatement claim of the assessee by not following the judicial precedence v) Whether the tribunal and authorities below can fasten liabilities for which show cause notice is silent and go beyond contents of show cause notice vi) Whether the tribunal and authorities below have followed principles of natural justice and if not its effect
(2.) The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots/billets by operating two induction furnaces of 3.5 MT and 3 MT capacities. They opted for payment of duty on compounded levy basis. They sought abatement of duty to the tune of Rs. 23 lacs for certain periods during August 1997 to January 1998 on the ground that one of the furnaces remained closed during the said period. The authorities under the Act declined to grant the said relief.
(3.) The Tribunal observed that relief of abatement was permissible only when the entire factory was closed and not merely a particular furnace. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Waryam Steels Castings Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh I 2003 (55) RLT 793.;