SIFCO METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO hear this appeal appellants are not required to pre -deposit any amount but they are seeking stay of the operation of the Order -in -Original No. 33/98, dated 30 -10 -1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise determining the duty liability in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997, etc. The basic dispute is regarding the fact whether the Re -heating Furnace is of the 'Batch Type' or the 'Pusher Type'. While the Order -in -Original impugned holds it to be Pusher Type, the appellants have contested the same with certain technical evidence to the contrary.

(2.) HEARD Shri K.R. Natarajan, the learned Advocate for the appellants who submits that the issue is already a covered one inasmuch as a similar issue was decided by this Tribunal in Final Order No. 428/99 in the case of Vizianagara Iron and Steel Products Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. which in turn follows the Final Order Nos. 424,426/99, dated 25 -2 -99 of M/s: Balaji Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and Others.

(3.) HEARD Smt. Aruna N. Gupta, the learned JDR who submits that the Order -in -Original impugned has recorded in detail the technical opinion of a team of experts from the National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology, Mandigovindgarh who had visited the Unit and sent their report to. the effect that this is a Pusher Type furnace. Learned JDR also submitted that in the initial declaration, the appellants themselves had described this as a Pusher Type furnace. Learned JDR therefore submits that there is no error in the Order -in -Original.