ORDER : Delay condoned in SLP(C) No. 326 of 2011. 2. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. 3. Application for amendment of cause title is allowed in C.A. No.114 of 2013 @ SLP(C) 570 of 2011. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue raised in the present appeals, viz., whether Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (for short, the 1997 Rules) would be attracted in a case where a manufacturer proposes to make some change in the installed machinery in terms of Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules, is no more res integra. 5. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, 2011 (269) E.L.T. 298 (S.C.), wherein it was held that : "29. Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules will be attracted for determination of the annual capacity of production of the factory when any change in the installed machinery or any part thereof is intimated to the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessees submit that some of the assessees have now chosen to challenge the vires of Rule 5 of 1997 Rules itself in the High Court and therefore, the present appeals may be adjourned to await the decision of the High Court. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel, on the short ground that when such a challenge was not laid before the Tribunal and the High Court, the assessees cannot be permitted to raise the issue at this juncture. 7. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the petition(s), stated to be pending before the High Court, following the decision in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills (supra), we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.