https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187381 In a compounded levy dispute under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, the article notes that entitlement to relief depended on whether products other than non-alloy steel ingots and billets were ordinary goods of the unit or merely incidental products under the Explanation to Rule 2. It states that the Tribunal could not allow the assessee's appeal without examining the Revenue's factual case or the Commissioner's findings, because the controversy turned on disputed factual issues requiring reasons. The matter was therefore remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits, with the High Court's factual observations not to influence the reconsideration. en-us Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:56:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187381 In a compounded levy dispute under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, the article notes that entitlement to relief depended on whether products other than non-alloy steel ingots and billets were ordinary goods of the unit or merely incidental products under the Explanation to Rule 2. It states that the Tribunal could not allow the assessee's appeal without examining the Revenue's factual case or the Commissioner's findings, because the controversy turned on disputed factual issues requiring reasons. The matter was therefore remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits, with the High Court's factual observations not to influence the reconsideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187381