Prior occupier's production data cannot determine capacity or valuation without proof of comparable manufacture under identical rules.

The valuation and production-capacity dispute turned on whether figures from a prior occupier of the same premises could be used against the present manufacturer, and whether the relevant rule provisions differed materially across the applicable rule sets. The Tribunal held that, absent proof that the earlier manufacture was identical to the respondent's activity, the prior occupier's production data could not be adopted as the basis for capacity or valuation. It also found that Rule 3(iii) of the 1998 Rules and the proviso to Rule 4 of the 2000 Rules were substantively identical, so the Revenue's objection on change of rules failed. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in sustaining the valuation and production-capacity determination, and whether the difference between Rule 3(iii) of the 1998 Rules and the proviso to Rule 4 of the 2000 Rules affected the outcome.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the order on the ground that the provision applied by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to the wrong set of rules for the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the factory had earlier been operated by another person and that there was no proof that the earlier manufacture was identical to the goods processed by the present respondent. It was therefore not proper to use the earlier manufacturer's production from the same premises as the basis for determining the respondent's capacity or valuation. The Tribunal also accepted the common position that Rule 3(iii) of the 1998 Rules was verbatim incorporated in the proviso to Rule 4 of the 2000 Rules, so no merit survived in the Revenue's challenge.

Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on merits because the material did not justify relying on the earlier occupier's production data, and the relevant rule position remained substantively the same across the two rule sets.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the later rule is materially identical to the earlier one, and there is no proof that production by a prior occupier of the same premises is comparable to the present manufacturer's activity, the earlier occupier's figures cannot be adopted to determine the current manufacturer's capacity or valuation.

---