https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155360 Under the compounded levy scheme, failure to intimate the Commissioner about changes in parameters affecting annual production capacity justified re-determination of the 'd' factor with effect from 16-7-98, and the resulting differential duty with interest was sustained. The explanation that the variation arose only from wear and tear was rejected because the parameters had in fact been altered during repairs. Penalty was also upheld because the scheme is self-contained and the liability was governed by the scheme-specific penalty provision, not by the incorrect references to Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. The first proviso to Section 11AC was held inapplicable. en-us Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2013 17:27:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155360 Under the compounded levy scheme, failure to intimate the Commissioner about changes in parameters affecting annual production capacity justified re-determination of the 'd' factor with effect from 16-7-98, and the resulting differential duty with interest was sustained. The explanation that the variation arose only from wear and tear was rejected because the parameters had in fact been altered during repairs. Penalty was also upheld because the scheme is self-contained and the liability was governed by the scheme-specific penalty provision, not by the incorrect references to Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. The first proviso to Section 11AC was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155360