<?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>2007 (10) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2208</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts&#039; decisions in a Central Excise Act case, dismissing the appellant&#039;s appeal. The Court upheld that the installed capacity of the furnace should be considered for determining deemed annual production, despite the appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the reduction in capacity due to power supply issues. The Tribunal&#039;s detailed factual analysis supported this conclusion, finding that the actual production aligned more closely with the original capacity. The High Court concurred, stating no substantial question of law was raised. The appeal was ultimately dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2208</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts&#039; decisions in a Central Excise Act case, dismissing the appellant&#039;s appeal. The Court upheld that the installed capacity of the furnace should be considered for determining deemed annual production, despite the appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the reduction in capacity due to power supply issues. The Tribunal&#039;s detailed factual analysis supported this conclusion, finding that the actual production aligned more closely with the original capacity. The High Court concurred, stating no substantial question of law was raised. The appeal was ultimately dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>