https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352173 The appeals were rejected as the adjudicating authority upheld the validity of the installed capacity certificate issued by the competent authority, dismissing the jurisdiction of the department to question it. The detailed analysis highlighted technical issues with the raw mill, discrepancies in the NCCBM report, and equitable treatment based on similar cases involving other cement companies. The authority concluded that the allegations of clandestine removal were unsustainable, affirming the legality of the impugned orders. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352173 The appeals were rejected as the adjudicating authority upheld the validity of the installed capacity certificate issued by the competent authority, dismissing the jurisdiction of the department to question it. The detailed analysis highlighted technical issues with the raw mill, discrepancies in the NCCBM report, and equitable treatment based on similar cases involving other cement companies. The authority concluded that the allegations of clandestine removal were unsustainable, affirming the legality of the impugned orders. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352173