2015 (9) TMI 202 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Whether Rule 5 of the Rules is liable to be declared unconstitutional, violative of Article 14 and/or ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - it has been held by the Division Bench 2015 (9) TMI 151 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT that Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 is neither violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or ultra vires of the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thereby dismissed the appeals. Thus, it would clearly indicate that co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Division Bench of this Court has dealt extensively with regard to constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the legality and constitutionality of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Previous Disposal of the Petition:
The petitioner sought various reliefs challenging Rule 5 of the Hot Rerolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The matter was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, which was then appealed by the petitioner. The Division Bench later dismissed the appeals and affirmed the initial order. The petitioner then approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, which set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted all matters back for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.

2. Legal Challenge to Rule 5:
The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that the legality and constitutionality of Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules was not in question in a previous case. The Court clarified that the previous decision did not challenge the validity of Rule 5. Consequently, all matters were remitted back to the High Courts for reconsideration.

3. Examination of Constitutional Validity:
The High Court re-examined the constitutional validity of Rule 5 in the present case. The petitioner contended that Rule 5 exceeded the provisions of the Act and created discriminatory classifications. The Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rule's validity. The Division Bench specifically analyzed whether Rule 5 violated Article 14 or Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After thorough examination, the Division Bench concluded that Rule 5 was not unconstitutional or ultra vires, as it had a rational nexus with the law's objectives.

4. Final Decision:
The Division Bench upheld the legality of Rule 5 and dismissed the appeals challenging its constitutionality. The Court found that the classification under Rule 5 was reasonable and aligned with the law's objectives. As a result, the writ petition challenging the rule's validity was ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the High Court extensively analyzed and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, based on the rational nexus with the law's objectives, thereby dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the rule's legality and constitutionality.