<?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>2015 (8) TMI 198 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262281</link>
    <description>Concessional excise eligibility depended on the assessee&#039;s installed capacity being below the prescribed threshold. The Tribunal had relied on a certificate from the Commissioner of Industries showing installed capacity at 1,94,040 tonnes per annum, but the Revenue produced additional material, including material originating from the assessee, indicating a higher capacity beyond 1,98,000 tonnes per annum. A capacity certificate is relevant, but it cannot be accepted without considering contrary evidence. Because the Tribunal did not examine the Revenue&#039;s material, the factual basis for its conclusion was incomplete. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of installed capacity and eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 198 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262281</link>
      <description>Concessional excise eligibility depended on the assessee&#039;s installed capacity being below the prescribed threshold. The Tribunal had relied on a certificate from the Commissioner of Industries showing installed capacity at 1,94,040 tonnes per annum, but the Revenue produced additional material, including material originating from the assessee, indicating a higher capacity beyond 1,98,000 tonnes per annum. A capacity certificate is relevant, but it cannot be accepted without considering contrary evidence. Because the Tribunal did not examine the Revenue&#039;s material, the factual basis for its conclusion was incomplete. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of installed capacity and eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>