https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170307 Under the compounded levy scheme for notified re-rolled iron and steel products, the department could not enhance the assessee's declared 'd' factor for a closed period on the basis of a verification conducted only after the scheme had been withdrawn. The record showed the verification was done after denotification, while the assessee had produced material regarding purchase and alteration of the pinion gear during the relevant period. In the absence of any established statutory duty to report changes in the 'd' factor after withdrawal of the scheme, the later verification was not a valid basis for revising the parameter retrospectively. The demand for differential duty for 19-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 therefore failed. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2015 11:16:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170307 Under the compounded levy scheme for notified re-rolled iron and steel products, the department could not enhance the assessee's declared 'd' factor for a closed period on the basis of a verification conducted only after the scheme had been withdrawn. The record showed the verification was done after denotification, while the assessee had produced material regarding purchase and alteration of the pinion gear during the relevant period. In the absence of any established statutory duty to report changes in the 'd' factor after withdrawal of the scheme, the later verification was not a valid basis for revising the parameter retrospectively. The demand for differential duty for 19-1-2000 to 31-3-2000 therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170307