- (1.) An application filed for amendment in the writ petition is not pressed and is accordingly dismissed.
(2.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notification Nos. 33/97-C.E. (N.T.) and 34/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-8-1997. It is to challenge Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997. The further prayer is made to hold Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules, 1997, to be unlawful as it is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 3A(3) of the Act, 1944. As a consequence of quashing of the Notification, restore the benefits given to the petitioner under Notification Nos. 49/97 and 50/97, dated 1-8-1997.
(3.) It is admitted by the parties that the controversy raised herein, was considered by different High Courts. The Karnataka High Court had decided the issue by a detailed judgment in the case of Meenakshi Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Union of India - 2015 (330) E.L.T. 138 (Kar.) . The challenge to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1997, showing it to be ultra vires to Section 3A of the Act, 1944, has not been accepted. Subsequently, same view was taken in other case of Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 73 (Kar.).;