<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (8) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93996</link>
    <description>Under the induction furnace self-assessment scheme, an assessee could not seek redetermination on actual production for a prior period after electing the capacity-based scheme, but could opt out for a subsequent period and obtain fresh determination of annual capacity from that point onward; the request effective from 1-6-98 was therefore accepted only for the later period. Where the relevant capacity rule required adoption of the authenticated manufacturer&#039;s invoice and the invoice showed furnace capacity as 3000 kgs, that document was the proper basis for determination and the Revenue&#039;s alternative estimate could not be preferred. The matter was remanded for fresh capacity determination from 1-6-98.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2019 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93996</link>
      <description>Under the induction furnace self-assessment scheme, an assessee could not seek redetermination on actual production for a prior period after electing the capacity-based scheme, but could opt out for a subsequent period and obtain fresh determination of annual capacity from that point onward; the request effective from 1-6-98 was therefore accepted only for the later period. Where the relevant capacity rule required adoption of the authenticated manufacturer&#039;s invoice and the invoice showed furnace capacity as 3000 kgs, that document was the proper basis for determination and the Revenue&#039;s alternative estimate could not be preferred. The matter was remanded for fresh capacity determination from 1-6-98.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>