Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee's declared "d" factor for assessment under the compounded levy scheme could be enhanced on the basis of a verification conducted after the scheme had been withdrawn, and whether differential duty could be demanded for the period 19-1-2000 to 31-3-2000.
Analysis: The dispute arose under the capacity based assessment scheme applicable to notified re-rolled products of iron and steel. The verification relied upon by the department was conducted on 6-12-2000, after the scheme had already been denotified with effect from 1-4-2000. The order notes that the assessee had produced documentary material showing purchase and alteration of the pinion gear in June and July 2000, and that no basis was shown for treating the later verification as decisive for the earlier period. Since no statutory obligation was established requiring the assessee to report changes in the "d" factor after withdrawal of the scheme, the enhancement of the parameter for the closed period was found unjustified.
Conclusion: The enhancement of the "d" factor from 158 mm to 197 mm for the period 19-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 was not sustainable, and the demand founded on that enhancement failed.