https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126572 Under the compounded levy scheme, removal of a chamber from a hot-air stenter required re-fixation of annual capacity with an operative date before duty liability for the intervening period could be determined. Rule 96ZQ(7), which governs abatement only on complete factory closure for at least seven continuous days, could not be applied to a limited removal of a chamber. Where the lower appellate authority treated the dispute as one of abatement and did not examine the effect of failing to re-fix capacity, the demand could not stand on that basis and the matter had to be reconsidered on the correct legal footing. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:34:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126572 Under the compounded levy scheme, removal of a chamber from a hot-air stenter required re-fixation of annual capacity with an operative date before duty liability for the intervening period could be determined. Rule 96ZQ(7), which governs abatement only on complete factory closure for at least seven continuous days, could not be applied to a limited removal of a chamber. Where the lower appellate authority treated the dispute as one of abatement and did not examine the effect of failing to re-fix capacity, the demand could not stand on that basis and the matter had to be reconsidered on the correct legal footing. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126572