https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47344 A Tribunal remand for re-determination of annual capacity under the Hot-Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 did not by itself give rise to a referable question of law. Rule 5 was treated as creating only a deeming fiction where capacity under Rule 3(3) is lower than actual production, while Rule 4 governed pro rata calculation when production covered only part of the year or capacity changed. The actual reworking of annual capacity remained a factual exercise for the competent authority under the Rules, so the High Court held that no question of law arose from the remand order and rejected the applications. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:34:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47344 A Tribunal remand for re-determination of annual capacity under the Hot-Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 did not by itself give rise to a referable question of law. Rule 5 was treated as creating only a deeming fiction where capacity under Rule 3(3) is lower than actual production, while Rule 4 governed pro rata calculation when production covered only part of the year or capacity changed. The actual reworking of annual capacity remained a factual exercise for the competent authority under the Rules, so the High Court held that no question of law arose from the remand order and rejected the applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47344