https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112099 The compounded levy scheme dispute concerned whether an enhanced 'i' factor from an NISST inspection could govern annual production capacity from 1-5-98. The Tribunal held that the inspection and verification report supported the revised 'i' factor, and the assessees had not objected to the panchnama or expert verification when made. It also found no evidence of any change in the electric motor, gear box, pulley system, or their combination, which was necessary to justify altering the 'i' factor. The Commissioner's finalisation of capacity and duty liability on that basis was upheld. en-us Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112099 The compounded levy scheme dispute concerned whether an enhanced 'i' factor from an NISST inspection could govern annual production capacity from 1-5-98. The Tribunal held that the inspection and verification report supported the revised 'i' factor, and the assessees had not objected to the panchnama or expert verification when made. It also found no evidence of any change in the electric motor, gear box, pulley system, or their combination, which was necessary to justify altering the 'i' factor. The Commissioner's finalisation of capacity and duty liability on that basis was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112099