<?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 (3) TMI 776 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325592</link>
    <description>Annual capacity under the compounded levy scheme must be determined on the basis of furnace capacity actually installed and put to use, not on equipment merely present in the factory. A sealed, uninstalled, and non-operational furnace could not be counted in computing annual production capacity. On the admitted facts that the 3.0 MT furnace remained sealed and unused, its inclusion in the capacity computation was unsustainable, and the reassessment fixing capacity at 3.4 MT was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 776 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325592</link>
      <description>Annual capacity under the compounded levy scheme must be determined on the basis of furnace capacity actually installed and put to use, not on equipment merely present in the factory. A sealed, uninstalled, and non-operational furnace could not be counted in computing annual production capacity. On the admitted facts that the 3.0 MT furnace remained sealed and unused, its inclusion in the capacity computation was unsustainable, and the reassessment fixing capacity at 3.4 MT was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>