https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215071 An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act could not proceed where the challenge raised only disputed factual questions, because concurrent findings showed two 3 MT furnaces were installed and duty was payable on that basis. Under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, duty under the compounded levy scheme is determined by installed capacity, not actual utilisation, so the plea that one furnace was idle or disconnected did not justify abatement or a different computation. An assessee who opts for that scheme remains bound by its capacity-based method of assessment. en-us Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215071 An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act could not proceed where the challenge raised only disputed factual questions, because concurrent findings showed two 3 MT furnaces were installed and duty was payable on that basis. Under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, duty under the compounded levy scheme is determined by installed capacity, not actual utilisation, so the plea that one furnace was idle or disconnected did not justify abatement or a different computation. An assessee who opts for that scheme remains bound by its capacity-based method of assessment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215071