TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been demanded by invoking provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise, Rules 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is defaulted. On scrutiny of ERI returns filed by the appellant on February, 2008 it was observed that the appellant has cleared excisable goods by availing Cenvat credit lying in their Cenvat credit account apart of the duty was paid through PLA but on 5th of March, 2008 the appellant failed to pay duty from their PLA account. In that circumstances, the appellant did not pay duty in time. Further, it was found that duty was paid by the appellant on 20.10.2005 and interest was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur Global Ltd. Reported in 2014 (310)ELT 833 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, are ultra virus. Although the said decision has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Apex court and the Hon ble Apex court has granted the stay of operation of the order of the Hon ble High court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Space Telelink Ltd. In Appeal No. C.E.A.C No. C.No.5/2016 vide order dated 08.03.2017 in the case of M/s space Telelink Ltd., Wherein it has observed as under. 7. The revenue has argued that the Supreme Court has entertained a special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991 the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the appellate authority. 8. It is apparent therefore, that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower court or authority does not deface ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
