2015 (10) TMI 355 - SC - Central Excise

Validity of High Court s order - legality and constitutionality of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Held that - Decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigrah v. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills , (2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), has no application in the present situation. In Doaba Steel Rolling Mills case (supra) the legality and constitutional validity of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules was not put in issue - Impugned orders are set aside - matter restored before high court - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
2. Legality and constitutionality of Rule 5.
3. Applicability of previous judgments.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Rule 5:
The Supreme Court, comprising R.M. Lodha, CJI., Kurian Joseph, and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ., addressed the issue of interpreting Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The Court noted that the parties agreed that the High Court should have considered the legality and constitutionality of Rule 5, as a previous decision did not apply to the current situation. The Court emphasized that the previous judgment did not challenge the validity of Rule 5, but rather focused on interpreting it. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were remanded to the respective High Courts for fresh hearing and disposal based on the law.

2. Legality and Constitutionality of Rule 5:
The legal representatives, including Shri Dushyant Dave, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, and S.K. Bagaria for the Appellant, and Shri K. Radhakrishnan for the Respondent, argued on the legality and constitutionality of Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules. They contended that the High Court should have delved into the legality and constitutionality of the rule, as the previous judgment did not address this aspect. The Court acknowledged the correctness of their submission and proceeded to set aside the impugned orders, directing a fresh hearing on the matter.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments:
The Court referred to a previous judgment in "Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills" to highlight that the legality and constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules were not challenged in that case. This clarification was crucial in the current case to emphasize the need for a fresh examination of the legality and constitutionality of Rule 5. As a result, the civil appeals were allowed, and the writ petitions were restored to the High Courts for reconsideration in line with the law. No costs were awarded in this matter.

This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment showcases the Court's meticulous consideration of the interpretation, legality, and constitutionality of Rule 5, along with the relevance of previous judgments in shaping the outcome of the case.