https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48586 No referable question of law arose under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act where the Tribunal's reference to Rule 173E of the Central Excise Rules was only illustrative. The Tribunal did not find that the Commissioner had actually exercised power under Rule 173E; instead, it rejected the Department's notional production formula because the record and evidence were inconsistent. The analysis confirmed that the decision did not interfere with the statutory power to fix production norms, but turned on the facts and materials on record. The challenge therefore failed. en-us Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:55:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48586 No referable question of law arose under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act where the Tribunal's reference to Rule 173E of the Central Excise Rules was only illustrative. The Tribunal did not find that the Commissioner had actually exercised power under Rule 173E; instead, it rejected the Department's notional production formula because the record and evidence were inconsistent. The analysis confirmed that the decision did not interfere with the statutory power to fix production norms, but turned on the facts and materials on record. The challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48586