In Brief
Three interconnected appeals challenged the validity of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, and Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. The appellants contended that Rule 5 was ultra vires as it created an impermissible legal fiction through delegated legislation and violated Article 14. The Court held that Rule 5 creates a rebuttable presumption of fact, not a legal fiction, and is therefore within delegated authority. However, the Court found Rule 96ZP(3) raises unresolved questions about whether it improperly restricts the statutory right to invoke Section 3A(4). The Court distinguished prior judgments in Venus Castings and Supreme Steels, finding their ratio required re-examination, and remitted the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate larger bench to finally settle the legal questions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.