<?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>2008 (7) TMI 312 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33086</link>
    <description>In determining annual capacity under furnace rules, the relevant enquiry is the furnace&#039;s working capacity, and all material evidence may be considered. The Tribunal accepted subsequent certificates from the Chartered Engineer and manufacturer, together with the departmental verification report, to support deterioration and reduced output capacity. A restrictive approach limited to the original invoice was rejected because the rules did not confine assessment to installed capacity alone. The reduction of the induction furnace&#039;s annual capacity from 5 MT to 4 MT was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 312 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33086</link>
      <description>In determining annual capacity under furnace rules, the relevant enquiry is the furnace&#039;s working capacity, and all material evidence may be considered. The Tribunal accepted subsequent certificates from the Chartered Engineer and manufacturer, together with the departmental verification report, to support deterioration and reduced output capacity. A restrictive approach limited to the original invoice was rejected because the rules did not confine assessment to installed capacity alone. The reduction of the induction furnace&#039;s annual capacity from 5 MT to 4 MT was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed because no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>