Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 235 - CESTAT ALLAHABADVires of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Default in payment of duty in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - confirmation of demands, required to be paid in cash - imposition of penalties - Held that:- The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Indsur Global Ltd. vs. UOI [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has declared the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as unconstitutional. The said decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court stands followed by the Tribunal in number of cases - Subsequently the said decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. stands considered and followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s A. R. Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015 (5) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. It is noticed that though the issue has been held in favour of the assessee by the above referred decisions of various High Courts but Revenue has challenged the Hon’ble Gujarat and Madras High Court’s decision by filing a Special Leave Petition against the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The SLP stands admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court alongwith grant of stay of proceedings - Tribunal in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Space Telelink Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has taken note of the said development of staying the proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However it stands observed that the said submission of the Revenue is fallacious because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association [1992 (4) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a Lower Court or Authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself i.e. its reasoning. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided by various decisions, the impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|