https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273343 A demand under the Hot Air Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 could not be sustained because Rule 3 had already been held ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the High Court ruling, after granting a personal hearing. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:19:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273343 A demand under the Hot Air Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 could not be sustained because Rule 3 had already been held ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the High Court ruling, after granting a personal hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273343