https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188717 For a manufacturer paying duty under rule 96ZO(3), liability had to be computed by reference to total furnace capacity under that scheme, not by importing the annual production-capacity formula from the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The sub-rule (3) mechanism was a distinct lump-sum levy with only limited pro rata adjustment tied to furnace capacity, so once the installed capacity was found to be 3 metric tonnes, the fixed monthly duty prescribed by the rule applied. The Tribunal erred in directing recalculation on the annual-capacity basis. The Commissioner's capacity determination was restored, together with the resulting refund entitlement and interest claim. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188717 For a manufacturer paying duty under rule 96ZO(3), liability had to be computed by reference to total furnace capacity under that scheme, not by importing the annual production-capacity formula from the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The sub-rule (3) mechanism was a distinct lump-sum levy with only limited pro rata adjustment tied to furnace capacity, so once the installed capacity was found to be 3 metric tonnes, the fixed monthly duty prescribed by the rule applied. The Tribunal erred in directing recalculation on the annual-capacity basis. The Commissioner's capacity determination was restored, together with the resulting refund entitlement and interest claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188717