<?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>2006 (1) TMI 299 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116923</link>
    <description>Where a unit changed machinery and production fell, duty remained assessable on the last determined annual capacity because the assessee did not follow the prescribed procedure for redetermination. The earlier capacity determination therefore continued to bind for duty purposes, and reduced production by itself could not justify a lower capacity-based levy. On that basis, the duty liability on the last determined annual capacity was sustained and no interference was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:30:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 299 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116923</link>
      <description>Where a unit changed machinery and production fell, duty remained assessable on the last determined annual capacity because the assessee did not follow the prescribed procedure for redetermination. The earlier capacity determination therefore continued to bind for duty purposes, and reduced production by itself could not justify a lower capacity-based levy. On that basis, the duty liability on the last determined annual capacity was sustained and no interference was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>