Binding precedent on invalid Rule 10-A demand led to dismissal of the appeal in the Central Excise dispute.

A demand raised under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because a prior Bench of the same High Court had already struck down the rule. The appellate argument that the rules operated as if enacted in the statute was rejected, as an identical contention had been declined in comparable circumstances. With no basis to distinguish or displace the binding earlier view, the writ order was left undisturbed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained in view of the earlier decision striking down the rule and the contention that the rules had effect as if enacted in the statute.

Analysis: The demand had admittedly been made under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A prior Bench decision of the same Court had already struck down the rule, and the learned Judge had followed that ruling in allowing the writ petition. The appellate contention based on the supposed statutory effect of the rules was not accepted, as a similar contention had already been rejected by another Bench in comparable circumstances. In the absence of any ground to distinguish or displace the earlier binding view, interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the writ order failed, and the appeal was dismissed, leaving the assessee in favour.

---