https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771473 The dispute concerned the date of commercial production for computing depreciation and sustaining a duty demand arising from de-bonding. The Development Commissioner had certified commencement on 23.03.2004, and the record showed that the unit consistently proceeded on that basis during de-bonding and payment of duty on stocks and assets. On that footing, re-fixing the commencement date to 27.11.2004 was not sustainable, so the demand based on excess depreciation could not survive and the penalty also fell. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 May 2025 08:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771473 The dispute concerned the date of commercial production for computing depreciation and sustaining a duty demand arising from de-bonding. The Development Commissioner had certified commencement on 23.03.2004, and the record showed that the unit consistently proceeded on that basis during de-bonding and payment of duty on stocks and assets. On that footing, re-fixing the commencement date to 27.11.2004 was not sustainable, so the demand based on excess depreciation could not survive and the penalty also fell. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771473