<?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>1998 (6) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45024</link>
    <description>Section 3A of the Central Excise Act permits capacity-based levy on notified goods and also provides a statutory mechanism for reassessment where actual production is lower than the determined annual capacity. The court noted that sub-section (4) allows the Commissioner, after hearing the assessee, to determine actual production and redetermine duty, while sub-section (5) allows adjustment of excess or short payment. On that scheme, power cuts reducing production were not treated as a ground to strike down the levy or Rule 96ZO(3), and the challenge failed. The petitioners were left to pursue the statutory remedy if actual output was below assessed capacity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:29:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45024</link>
      <description>Section 3A of the Central Excise Act permits capacity-based levy on notified goods and also provides a statutory mechanism for reassessment where actual production is lower than the determined annual capacity. The court noted that sub-section (4) allows the Commissioner, after hearing the assessee, to determine actual production and redetermine duty, while sub-section (5) allows adjustment of excess or short payment. On that scheme, power cuts reducing production were not treated as a ground to strike down the levy or Rule 96ZO(3), and the challenge failed. The petitioners were left to pursue the statutory remedy if actual output was below assessed capacity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>