https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122230 Duty based on an unchallenged annual capacity determination under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was upheld because the assessee had opted for payment under Rule 96ZP(3) and could not dispute liability by referring to actual production or furnace type. The demand was also not barred by limitation, as Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a self-contained provision and did not prescribe any limitation period; reference to Section 11A did not alter that position. The duty demand was therefore sustained in full. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:25:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122230 Duty based on an unchallenged annual capacity determination under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was upheld because the assessee had opted for payment under Rule 96ZP(3) and could not dispute liability by referring to actual production or furnace type. The demand was also not barred by limitation, as Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a self-contained provision and did not prescribe any limitation period; reference to Section 11A did not alter that position. The duty demand was therefore sustained in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122230