https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50429 An induction furnace unit was not liable to be assessed twice where it ordinarily manufactured alloy steel ingots, stainless steel and steel castings, and non-alloy steel production was only incidental. Because the unit had not opted for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZO(3), duty could not be demanded on both a capacity-based method and again at the standard rate on the same manufacturing activity. On the facts found, the standard rate alone applied and the compounded levy demand was not sustained. The appeal succeeded and the impugned duty demand was set aside to the extent it proceeded on an impermissible double levy approach. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:18:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50429 An induction furnace unit was not liable to be assessed twice where it ordinarily manufactured alloy steel ingots, stainless steel and steel castings, and non-alloy steel production was only incidental. Because the unit had not opted for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZO(3), duty could not be demanded on both a capacity-based method and again at the standard rate on the same manufacturing activity. On the facts found, the standard rate alone applied and the compounded levy demand was not sustained. The appeal succeeded and the impugned duty demand was set aside to the extent it proceeded on an impermissible double levy approach. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50429