2015 (7) TMI 135 - SC - Central Excise

Constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Whether Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would apply to a case where annual capacity of production has been redetermined in terms of Rule 4(2) on account of change in parameters even though re- determined annual capacity is less than the annual production for the financial year 1996-97 - Held that - Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. It is obvious that High Court shall consider that Writ Petition appropriately in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the High Court in that Writ petition, it may pursue appropriate remedy in challenging that order. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
2. Application of Rule 4(2) in determining annual production capacity.
3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
4. Dismissal of application for recalling a High Court order.
5. Constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The specific question referred for consideration was whether Rule 5 would apply when the annual capacity of production is redetermined under Rule 4(2) due to changes in parameters, even if the redetermined capacity is lower than the production for a specific financial year. The Supreme Court referred to a previous case to answer this question definitively.

2. It was noted that the High Court had granted liberty for an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to recall its order dated August 26, 2011. The petitioner indeed filed such an application, which was subsequently dismissed by the High Court in an order dated January 23, 2012. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the circumstances, found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders under its jurisdiction as per Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

3. The Supreme Court acknowledged that a Writ Petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 5 of the Hot-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, had been filed by the petitioner in the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court would appropriately consider the Writ Petition in accordance with the law. The petitioner was advised to pursue the necessary legal remedies if aggrieved by the outcome of the Writ Petition in the High Court.

4. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court, indicating that the Court found no grounds to grant special leave for further appeal or intervention in the matter based on the facts and legal arguments presented.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the interpretation of specific rules governing steel mills' annual capacity determination, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the dismissal of an application for recalling a High Court order, and the pathway for challenging the constitutional validity of a rule through appropriate legal channels.