9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1277 - HC - Central ExciseChallenge to Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997. - Held that - In view of the above, the writ petition is ordered to be governed by the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in the cases of Meenakshi Steel (2015 (9) TMI 151 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and Bhuwalka Steel (2015 (9) TMI 202 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), however, this order is to be governed finally by the outcome of the pending appeal before the Apex Court in the case of Bhuwalka Steel or any other appeal on the same challenge. If finally the appeal is allowed by the Apex Court, the writ petition would also be treated as allowed. However, if the appeal is dismissed by the Apex Court, there would be no change in the judgment. In view of the above, the outcome of this petition would be governed finally by the outcome of the appeal pending before the Apex Court on the same challenge. The direction aforesaid is being given to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Issues involved:
Challenge to Notification nos. 33/97-C.E.(N.T.) and 34/97-C.E.(N.T.), dated 1.8.1997; Validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997; Legality of Rule 96-ZP(3) of the Rules, 1997 in relation to Section 3A(3) of the Act, 1944; Application for consolidation of cases pending before various High Courts; Multiplicity of litigation due to pending appeals before the Apex Court. Analysis: The writ petition challenged Notification nos. 33/97-C.E.(N.T.) and 34/97-C.E.(N.T.) dated 1.8.1997 and the validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997. The petitioner sought to declare Rule 96-ZP(3) of the Rules, 1997 unlawful for not aligning with Section 3A(3) of the Act, 1944 and requested restoration of benefits under Notification Nos. 49/97 and 50/97. The Karnataka High Court previously upheld Rule 5, setting a precedent, which was followed in another case. The matter was deferred for consolidation as similar issues were pending in various High Courts and before the Apex Court. The parties disagreed on the necessity of consolidating cases pending before different High Courts. The Revenue argued that since the issue was decided by the Karnataka High Court and possibly the Madras High Court, there was no need for consolidation. The petitioner suggested aligning the judgment with the pending Supreme Court case to avoid further litigation. The Court considered the age of the writ petition, the previous decision by the Karnataka High Court, and the need to avoid prolonged litigation due to pending appeals. Ultimately, the Court ordered the writ petition to be governed by the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in relevant cases, subject to the final outcome of the pending appeal before the Apex Court. The decision of the Apex Court in the pending appeal would determine the fate of the writ petition. This direction aimed to prevent multiple litigations on the same issue. The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to contest other issues before the appropriate authorities. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges to specific notifications and rules while considering the precedents set by the Karnataka High Court. The decision was made to align the outcome of the writ petition with the pending appeal before the Apex Court to prevent unnecessary litigation. The Court's focus was on avoiding duplication of legal proceedings and ensuring a final resolution based on the Apex Court's decision.
|
