https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366837 In a compounded levy dispute, the Madras HC treated the assessee's grievance as a claim for abatement during the period when the factory was closed and the furnaces were not functioning, rather than a request for fresh redetermination of annual production capacity. It clarified that, on remand, the Commissioner must confine consideration to abatement under Rule 96ZO(3) and the applicable provisions. The Court found the dispute to be narrow, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366837 In a compounded levy dispute, the Madras HC treated the assessee's grievance as a claim for abatement during the period when the factory was closed and the furnaces were not functioning, rather than a request for fresh redetermination of annual production capacity. It clarified that, on remand, the Commissioner must confine consideration to abatement under Rule 96ZO(3) and the applicable provisions. The Court found the dispute to be narrow, held that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366837