https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184743 Challenge to the validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997 and Rule 96-ZP(3) of the Rules, 1997 was not independently adjudicated on the merits because the issue had already been considered by other High Courts, which upheld the impugned rule. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with those rulings and made subject to the final outcome of the pending appeal before the Apex Court. en-us Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184743 Challenge to the validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997 and Rule 96-ZP(3) of the Rules, 1997 was not independently adjudicated on the merits because the issue had already been considered by other High Courts, which upheld the impugned rule. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with those rulings and made subject to the final outcome of the pending appeal before the Apex Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184743