https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265080 A prior Supreme Court ruling confined to interpretation of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 did not control where the present challenge concerned the rule's legality and constitutional validity. Because the High Court had not considered those issues, its orders could not stand. The impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were restored to the respective High Courts for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law, so that the validity of Rule 5 could be decided at first instance. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265080 A prior Supreme Court ruling confined to interpretation of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 did not control where the present challenge concerned the rule's legality and constitutional validity. Because the High Court had not considered those issues, its orders could not stand. The impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were restored to the respective High Courts for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law, so that the validity of Rule 5 could be decided at first instance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265080