https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407437 Duty assessed under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was not finally sustained because the validity of Rule 5 was pending before the Supreme Court; the duty demand was remanded for reconsideration after that decision. On interest, the compounded levy scheme did not expressly authorise levy of interest, and the demand for interest was therefore set aside. The matter thus resulted in partial success, with the duty issue left open for fresh adjudication and the interest component eliminated. en-us Wed, 28 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 May 2021 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407437 Duty assessed under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was not finally sustained because the validity of Rule 5 was pending before the Supreme Court; the duty demand was remanded for reconsideration after that decision. On interest, the compounded levy scheme did not expressly authorise levy of interest, and the demand for interest was therefore set aside. The matter thus resulted in partial success, with the duty issue left open for fresh adjudication and the interest component eliminated. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407437