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, under the compounded levy scheme, duty could be demanded on the capacity of furnaces that had been permanently closed and for which permission to dismantle had been sought but not granted.
Analysis: The appellant had informed the excise authorities before and during the relevant period that two furnaces were permanently closed, and the records of visiting officers also reflected that those furnaces were not in production. The scheme permitted duty to be determined with reference to changed production capacity, and the Court treated the request to dismantle the closed furnaces as part of the factual sequence showing permanent cessation of use. The demand was therefore not sustainable merely because the authorities did not act on the dismantling request. The authorities relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished as dealing with temporary closure or with working of alternative furnaces, not with permanent reduction of capacity.
Conclusion: The demand, penalty, and interest based on the closed furnaces could not be sustained, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee obtained the consequential relief flowing from acceptance of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the compounded levy scheme, duty cannot be fastened on machinery that has been permanently closed where the reduced capacity is established and the assessee has sought redetermination in accordance with the rules.