Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on a change in machinery resulting in reduction of annual production capacity, Rule 5 of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 could be applied to fix the annual capacity on the basis of actual production of the earlier year, or whether the capacity had to be determined only under Rule 3(3) without invoking Rule 5.
Analysis: The rules provided for determination of annual capacity by the formula in Rule 3, while Rule 4 dealt with pro rata calculation for part-year capacity or changes in capacity, and Rule 5 created a deeming fiction where the computed capacity was lower than actual production in 1996-97. The change in the petitioner's machinery reduced the relevant parameter and, on the formula under Rule 3(3), the annual capacity stood reduced. The Court accepted the interpretation that the deeming fiction in Rule 5 was not meant to override the formula where a machinery change caused reduction in capacity, since applying the earlier actual production figure in such a case would be inconsistent with the basis of compounded levy.
Conclusion: Rule 5 could not be applied to the petitioner's case, and the annual capacity for 1998-99 had to be determined under Rule 3(3) without reference to the actual production of 1996-97.