https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432214 The challenge to Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was rejected because the Supreme Court had already upheld the capacity-based assessment scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, including the connected rules. As the binding precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Limited covered the issue, the Telangana HC found no scope to declare Rule 5 ultra vires or violative of Article 14, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:43:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432214 The challenge to Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was rejected because the Supreme Court had already upheld the capacity-based assessment scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, including the connected rules. As the binding precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Limited covered the issue, the Telangana HC found no scope to declare Rule 5 ultra vires or violative of Article 14, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432214