Annual capacity determination must use the finishing mill's nominal centre distance, not the roughing mill drive.

Annual capacity of a re-rolling mill had to be determined under Rule 3(3)(b) by reference to the finishing mill, using the defined "nominal centre distance" of the last rolling mill drive and excluding the pinch roll. Adoption of the roughing mill drive was inconsistent with the rule's definition and scheme, because the machinery setup could include stages prior to the finishing mill. The re-determination based on the roughing mill drive was therefore not sustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh determination under Rule 3(3)(b).

---

---

Issues: Whether the annual production capacity of the re-rolling mill had to be determined under Rule 3(3)(b) of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 by taking the nominal centre distance of the last rolling mill drive of the finishing mill, and whether the impugned re-determination based on the roughing mill drive was sustainable.

Analysis: The Rules contemplate determination of annual capacity with reference to the finishing mill, and the expression "nominal centre distance" is defined as the pinion centre distance of the last rolling mill drive of the finishing mill, excluding any pinch roll. The mill setup had multiple sections, and the rule itself recognizes that the machinery may contain stages prior to the finishing mill. The Commissioner's adoption of the roughing mill drive as the relevant factor did not accord with the statutory definition, and the impugned approach was inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 3(3)(b).

Conclusion: The re-determination of annual capacity was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner to fix annual capacity in accordance with Rule 3(3)(b).

---