https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75996 Where the rolling mill's parameters were materially reduced after dismantling of part of the unit, excise duty could not be demanded on an earlier notional annual capacity that no longer existed; duty had to be based on the actual reduced production capacity, and Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not override that factual change. The Court also treated intimation of the change to the Department, followed by redetermination of capacity, as sufficient compliance with Rule 4(2); alleged non-compliance could not be used to invoke Rule 5. The Revenue's demand therefore failed. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75996 Where the rolling mill's parameters were materially reduced after dismantling of part of the unit, excise duty could not be demanded on an earlier notional annual capacity that no longer existed; duty had to be based on the actual reduced production capacity, and Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not override that factual change. The Court also treated intimation of the change to the Department, followed by redetermination of capacity, as sufficient compliance with Rule 4(2); alleged non-compliance could not be used to invoke Rule 5. The Revenue's demand therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75996