https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51758 The case involved a hot re-rolling steel mill disputing a higher duty amount imposed due to the re-determination of annual production capacity for Central Excise duty payment. The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs imposed based on the impugned order. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that duty payment under the compounded levy scheme should be based on the annual capacity of production, not affected by temporary machinery breakdowns unless there is a change in installed capacity. The impugned order demanding higher duty due to the non-functional pinion stand "C" was deemed incorrect, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:35:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51758 The case involved a hot re-rolling steel mill disputing a higher duty amount imposed due to the re-determination of annual production capacity for Central Excise duty payment. The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs imposed based on the impugned order. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that duty payment under the compounded levy scheme should be based on the annual capacity of production, not affected by temporary machinery breakdowns unless there is a change in installed capacity. The impugned order demanding higher duty due to the non-functional pinion stand "C" was deemed incorrect, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51758