https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46930 The dominant issue was whether capacity-based levy notifications issued under s.3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 validly prescribed a workable formula to determine annual production capacity of processed textile fabrics. The HC held that the impugned rules (including Rule 3 under Notification No. 42/1998) fixed an average production value per chamber per month without an explained, factor-based formula, impermissibly treating all chambers alike despite differences in nature, age, and capacity; this methodology was not contemplated by s.3A and could not yield correct capacity determination. Consequently, Rule 3 and the related rules under subsequent impugned notifications, being derivative, were declared ultra vires and set aside, while clarifying that duty remained payable under s.3 or other applicable provisions. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46930 The dominant issue was whether capacity-based levy notifications issued under s.3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 validly prescribed a workable formula to determine annual production capacity of processed textile fabrics. The HC held that the impugned rules (including Rule 3 under Notification No. 42/1998) fixed an average production value per chamber per month without an explained, factor-based formula, impermissibly treating all chambers alike despite differences in nature, age, and capacity; this methodology was not contemplated by s.3A and could not yield correct capacity determination. Consequently, Rule 3 and the related rules under subsequent impugned notifications, being derivative, were declared ultra vires and set aside, while clarifying that duty remained payable under s.3 or other applicable provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46930