https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41748 Notification No. 201 of 1985, issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was challenged as ultra vires because it used adjusted sale price as the basis of levy and was said to produce unworkable results. The HC held that Rule 8(3) and its explanation permitted exemption and valuation by a method different from the ordinary statutory form, and that adjusted sale price was a permissible and ascertainable basis known in advance to manufacturers. A delegated legislative notification could not be struck down merely because it appeared anomalous or difficult to apply, since such considerations do not invalidate authorised legislative instruments. The notification was therefore within the parent rule and the Act, and was upheld as valid. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:45:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41748 Notification No. 201 of 1985, issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was challenged as ultra vires because it used adjusted sale price as the basis of levy and was said to produce unworkable results. The HC held that Rule 8(3) and its explanation permitted exemption and valuation by a method different from the ordinary statutory form, and that adjusted sale price was a permissible and ascertainable basis known in advance to manufacturers. A delegated legislative notification could not be struck down merely because it appeared anomalous or difficult to apply, since such considerations do not invalidate authorised legislative instruments. The notification was therefore within the parent rule and the Act, and was upheld as valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41748