https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219143 Rule 3(3) required annual capacity of production to be determined by the prescribed formula, while Rule 5 created a deeming fiction only for 1996-97 where actual production exceeded that capacity. That deeming provision could not be extended to treat 1996-97 actual production as the capacity for later years, nor justify retrospective revision for 1997-98 and 1998-99. The demand based on that approach was therefore unsupported by the Rules. The differential duty demand was also barred by limitation because the show cause notice was issued long after the relevant period, and the time-bar finding was upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219143 Rule 3(3) required annual capacity of production to be determined by the prescribed formula, while Rule 5 created a deeming fiction only for 1996-97 where actual production exceeded that capacity. That deeming provision could not be extended to treat 1996-97 actual production as the capacity for later years, nor justify retrospective revision for 1997-98 and 1998-99. The demand based on that approach was therefore unsupported by the Rules. The differential duty demand was also barred by limitation because the show cause notice was issued long after the relevant period, and the time-bar finding was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219143