https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330126 Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was upheld because its classification served the object of the capacity-determination scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court accepted that the Rule was designed to align capacity assessment with actual production trends and prevent misuse of the statutory mechanism. It also noted that Section 3A contains safeguards, including redetermination where lower actual production is proved, which address exceptional hardship. The Rule was therefore treated as neither discriminatory under Article 14 nor beyond the scope of the parent provision. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:48:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330126 Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was upheld because its classification served the object of the capacity-determination scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court accepted that the Rule was designed to align capacity assessment with actual production trends and prevent misuse of the statutory mechanism. It also noted that Section 3A contains safeguards, including redetermination where lower actual production is proved, which address exceptional hardship. The Rule was therefore treated as neither discriminatory under Article 14 nor beyond the scope of the parent provision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330126