TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative For the Respondent : None PER ASHOK JINDAL : The Revenue is in appeals against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, who are operating under compound levy scheme under Section 3A and thus were required to discharge their duty liability under Section 3A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent, who stated that they discharged the duty on the basis of actual capacity determined by the authorities and paid duty accordingly. 2.5 The adjudicating authority found that the respondents were operating compound levy scheme during the impugned period and the annual capacity of production on provisional basis was fixed and thereafter, finally determined the annual capacity of production ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord to sustain allegation of excess production. It is incorrect to allege that the determination of ACP was made on the basis of the declaration made by the said assessee. On the contrary, I find that the then jurisdictional Commissioner in respect of 1997-98, first, on the basis of particulars furnished by the assessee. Provisionally fixed ACP, ad thereafter, on getting verification report final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard. Furthermore, frailties in determination of ACP and fixation of duty liability could not be indicated in the impugned Show Cause Notice e that led to infer that allegation of excess production, being bereft of evidence, stands on myth. I also find that the charges of availment of deemed credit by downstream manufacturers are also based on assumptions and presumptions in as much as such c....