https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439843 The raw pet-coke quota was fixed on the production capacities disclosed and accepted as of 09.10.2018, with the Consent to Operate treated as the controlling basis for capacity assessment. Later claims that the calciner had increased production capacity after that date were not taken into account, because the allocation regime had already rejected reliance on subsequent expansion. A later State Pollution Control Board certificate did not alter the earlier capacity position or create a fresh entitlement, so it could not justify reopening or revising the quota already fixed under the existing framework. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Nov 2023 14:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439843 The raw pet-coke quota was fixed on the production capacities disclosed and accepted as of 09.10.2018, with the Consent to Operate treated as the controlling basis for capacity assessment. Later claims that the calciner had increased production capacity after that date were not taken into account, because the allocation regime had already rejected reliance on subsequent expansion. A later State Pollution Control Board certificate did not alter the earlier capacity position or create a fresh entitlement, so it could not justify reopening or revising the quota already fixed under the existing framework. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439843