https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261174 The Supreme Court noted that the applicability of Rule 5 of the Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, on re-determined capacity was already settled by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, and the petitioner did not dispute that position. It also declined to interfere with the High Court's order refusing recall under Section 151 CPC, finding no error warranting intervention. As to the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 5, the Court left the issue to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and observed that remedies against any future order would remain open. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:52:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261174 The Supreme Court noted that the applicability of Rule 5 of the Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, on re-determined capacity was already settled by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, and the petitioner did not dispute that position. It also declined to interfere with the High Court's order refusing recall under Section 151 CPC, finding no error warranting intervention. As to the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 5, the Court left the issue to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and observed that remedies against any future order would remain open. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261174