<?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>2016 (2) TMI 286 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271581</link>
    <description>An unchallenged final determination of annual production capacity binds the assessee for excise duty purposes, even if the capacity was earlier fixed provisionally. The Commissioner&#039;s communication confirming capacity in March 2000 attained finality, so the duty demand for the relevant period was sustained on that basis. The plea that capacity had not been finally determined was rejected as factually incorrect. The omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not displace the liability, because the duty arose from the final and unchallenged fixation already made before the omission. The challenge to the demand therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 286 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271581</link>
      <description>An unchallenged final determination of annual production capacity binds the assessee for excise duty purposes, even if the capacity was earlier fixed provisionally. The Commissioner&#039;s communication confirming capacity in March 2000 attained finality, so the duty demand for the relevant period was sustained on that basis. The plea that capacity had not been finally determined was rejected as factually incorrect. The omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not displace the liability, because the duty arose from the final and unchallenged fixation already made before the omission. The challenge to the demand therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>