https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217973 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for reevaluation, as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the discrepancy in the annual production capacity of the mill. It was found that the demand quantification did not align with the fixed capacity under the compounded levy scheme, casting doubt on its validity. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and instructed a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to thoroughly assess factors like the mill's capacity and electric consumption in determining the legitimacy of the Revenue's demand. en-us Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217973 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for reevaluation, as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the discrepancy in the annual production capacity of the mill. It was found that the demand quantification did not align with the fixed capacity under the compounded levy scheme, casting doubt on its validity. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and instructed a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to thoroughly assess factors like the mill's capacity and electric consumption in determining the legitimacy of the Revenue's demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217973