TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the petitioner can benefit out of the declaration of invalidity of such Rule 8(3A) in the facts and circumstances of the present case? - Held that:- Indsur Global Ltd., on which learned advocate for the petitioner places heavy reliance, notices that, the petitioner before Their Lordships had caused 170 days delay in preferring an appeal though the statutory alternative mechanism was available to it. Their Lordships did not grant any monetary relief flowing out of the declaration of Rule 8(3A) to be invalid. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present proceeding. Petition disposed off. - W.P 8066 (W) of 2017 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. Mr. Tanmoy Chakravarty Ms. Satabdi Chatterjeee for the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of four different High Courts that, Rule 8(3A) of the Rules, 2002 has been struck down. He submits that, the special leave petition filed against one of such orders is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Although there is a stay of the judgement and order, the same has not been set aside. In support of such contention, learned advocate for the petitioners relies upon 2014 (310) Excise Law Time 833(Gujarat) (Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of Inia), 2015 (326) Excise Law Time 256 (Punjab Haryana) ( Sandley Industries v. Union of India), 2015 (323) Excise Law Time 489 (Mad) (Malladi Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India), 2015 (316) Excise Law Time, 595 (Gujarat) Precision Fasteners Ltd. v. CCE and 2016 (31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning of the decisions noted above, Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules to the extent as indicated in Indsur Global Ltd.(supra) is declared to be invalid. The next question arises as to whether the petitioner can benefit out of the declaration of invalidity of such Rule 8(3A) in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Indsur Global Ltd.(supra), on which learned advocate for the petitioner places heavy reliance, notices that, the petitioner before Their Lordships had caused 170 days delay in preferring an appeal though the statutory alternative mechanism was available to it. Their Lordships did not grant any monetary relief flowing out of the declaration of Rule 8(3A) to be invalid. The petitioner is not entitled to any rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
