https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265384 A writ petition under Article 226 challenged the constitutional and statutory validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, including its alleged inconsistency with the Central Excise Act, the CENVAT scheme, Explanation to Rule 8(4), and CBEC instructions. The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was allowed. The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and also dismissed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265384 A writ petition under Article 226 challenged the constitutional and statutory validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, including its alleged inconsistency with the Central Excise Act, the CENVAT scheme, Explanation to Rule 8(4), and CBEC instructions. The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was allowed. The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and also dismissed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265384