<?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>2004 (12) TMI 252 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53700</link>
    <description>ACP demands founded on invalid capacity determinations could not survive, so the connected duty demand and penalty were set aside. Where factory parameters changed in a manner reducing production capacity, annual capacity had to be redetermined afresh under Rule 3(3) of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, not Rule 5; the Commissioner&#039;s contrary approach was therefore unsustainable. On the effective date of changed parameters, the date specifically intimated by the assessee was accepted where stated, and where no specific date was given, the date of the second intimation was taken as operative. A later unsupported opinion could not displace prior expert certification that the furnaces were pusher type, so batch-type classification was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:45:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 252 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53700</link>
      <description>ACP demands founded on invalid capacity determinations could not survive, so the connected duty demand and penalty were set aside. Where factory parameters changed in a manner reducing production capacity, annual capacity had to be redetermined afresh under Rule 3(3) of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, not Rule 5; the Commissioner&#039;s contrary approach was therefore unsustainable. On the effective date of changed parameters, the date specifically intimated by the assessee was accepted where stated, and where no specific date was given, the date of the second intimation was taken as operative. A later unsupported opinion could not displace prior expert certification that the furnaces were pusher type, so batch-type classification was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>