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, after intimation of closure and modification of machinery parameters, the assessee was entitled to have the revised annual capacity of production of 880.5 MT/annum applied for the relevant period, instead of the base year capacity being deemed for that period.
Analysis: The facts of intimation, closure, modification and departmental verification were not in dispute. The reduced capacity after re-determination was 880.5 MT/annum. The deemed capacity principle was held to apply where there is no change in parameters during the relevant period, whereas the scheme for re-determination of capacity governs cases where parameters are altered. Since the assessee had intimated the closure and completion of modification, there was no justification to ignore the re-determined capacity for the period after receipt of the intimation.
Conclusion: The revised annual capacity of production of 880.5 MT/annum had to be applied for the relevant period, and the contrary adoption of the base year capacity was not justified.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that duty liability for the relevant period was to be worked out on the basis of the re-determined capacity, with consequential relief according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the manufacturer has validly intimated and effected a change in parameters, the re-determined annual capacity must govern the relevant period, and the deemed base-year capacity applies only in the absence of such change.