https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41289 A challenge to sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on excessive delegation was rejected because the Supreme Court had already upheld the rule's validity. The exemption notification was also held not to offend Article 14, as its proviso merely adjusted the exemption by taking account of duty already paid on ingots and did not create a hostile or additional burden on similarly placed manufacturers. The impugned demand and notification were sustained. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:33:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41289 A challenge to sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on excessive delegation was rejected because the Supreme Court had already upheld the rule's validity. The exemption notification was also held not to offend Article 14, as its proviso merely adjusted the exemption by taking account of duty already paid on ingots and did not create a hostile or additional burden on similarly placed manufacturers. The impugned demand and notification were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41289