9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench The issue in dispute concerns default in payment of duty beyond 30 days, hence apparently contravening the provisions of Rule 8(3) and 8(3A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In adjudication proceedings vide impugned order dated 17.8.2009, central excise duty amount of Rs. 4,07,52,744/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortion of Rule 8(3A) relates to bar of utilization of CENVAT credit by such defaulters to be ultra vires. He also submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of A.R. Metallurgicals P. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT - 2015 (322) ELT 49 (Mad.) has struck down Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5." 4. In the event, since this Tribunal in identical circumstances has since remanded the matters back to the original adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication based on the outcome of the final ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above civil appeal, we find it proper to remand the present appeal also. 5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
