<?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>2012 (7) TMI 446 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214876</link>
    <description>Annual capacity fixation under the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not rest on an unreliable Superintendent&#039;s verification report. The report did not match the earlier declarations, the stated declaration date was not traceable in the record, and a later endorsement by a third person undermined its credibility. Because verification was central to determining duty liability under the compounded levy scheme, the report had to be meticulous and dependable; it was not. The fixation was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee, with the tribunal also noting that no duty demand had followed and the mill had already been dismantled and closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 17:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 446 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214876</link>
      <description>Annual capacity fixation under the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could not rest on an unreliable Superintendent&#039;s verification report. The report did not match the earlier declarations, the stated declaration date was not traceable in the record, and a later endorsement by a third person undermined its credibility. Because verification was central to determining duty liability under the compounded levy scheme, the report had to be meticulous and dependable; it was not. The fixation was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee, with the tribunal also noting that no duty demand had followed and the mill had already been dismantled and closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>