TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 2002 - whether the appellant is liable to clear the goods using the CENVAT account during the period of default? - Held that:- The issue is under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indsur Global Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 1101 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Apex Court has stayed the operation of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Courts of Gujarat and Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.1.2014 directed the appellant to make predeposit of ₹ 5,00,000/- whereas they had already paid through CENVAT account ₹ 8,01,204/- and therefore this ought to have been considered sufficient compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On 20.6.2014, the appellant could not appear and argue the matter and there was an omission to bring to the notice of the Tribunal the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit, the appeal has to be restored to the files of the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. ROA is allowed. 6. Both sides were heard on the merits of the case also. 7. The issue is with regard to the demand raised for violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Act, 2002. The said issue whether the appellant is liable to clear the goods using the CENVAT account during the period of default is under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
