https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102145 Under the compounded levy scheme, furnace capacity for duty was to be determined on annual capacity of production based on reliable technical and physical evidence, not actual production. Certificate II was rejected because its dimensions and supporting circumstances were inconsistent, while Certificates I and III, together with power availability and the authorised signatory's statements, supported a 1.5 tonne crucible capacity. Once settlement proceedings were entertained, the Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction and the Commissioner's later adjudication order had no operative effect. Duty was recomputed on the 1.5 tonne basis, with limited penalties, partial immunity, interest relief and release of seized goods on payment of the balance duty. en-us Thu, 23 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:53:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102145 Under the compounded levy scheme, furnace capacity for duty was to be determined on annual capacity of production based on reliable technical and physical evidence, not actual production. Certificate II was rejected because its dimensions and supporting circumstances were inconsistent, while Certificates I and III, together with power availability and the authorised signatory's statements, supported a 1.5 tonne crucible capacity. Once settlement proceedings were entertained, the Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction and the Commissioner's later adjudication order had no operative effect. Duty was recomputed on the 1.5 tonne basis, with limited penalties, partial immunity, interest relief and release of seized goods on payment of the balance duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102145