TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER OF CE ST, LTU, MUMBAI [ 2022 (7) TMI 920 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and ANDHRA CYLINDERS PVT LTD, NALIN KHARA, MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD I [ 2020 (1) TMI 189 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] - It was held in M/s. ANDHRA CYLINDER that What needs to be decided in this factual matrix is where there are judgments by four different High Courts holding Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires and there is no judgment of any High Court upholding it and where the appeals against these judgments have been admitted and are under consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the ratio of these judgments bind this tribunal or otherwise. We find that the last in the series of judgments was passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,47,38,289/- was payable. The appellant paid central excise duty of Rs. 83,20,396/- by utilizing cenvat credit as against the total liability of Rs.1,47,38,289/-. The balance amount was paid by the appellant in cash from their PLA account. 03. It has been the case of the department that appellant failed to make full payment of duty within prescribed time limit as provided under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and since the appellant defaulted in payment of excise duty in terms of Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3) of the said rules, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 8 Sub-rule (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 the appellant should have paid the entire default amount of Rs. 1,41,36,316/- from thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in view of discussion above at para 17. However, no redemption fine is imposed in lieu of confiscation considering that the goods are not available for confiscation. (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) against M/s. Indus Tropics Limited under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants are before us against above Order-In-Original. 05. We have carefully heard both the sides in detail. The issue in brief is that though entire defaulted amount of central excise duty along with interest stands deposited with a delay of few weeks, the Department is of the view that as per the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble High Court of Madras striking down Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires. Against this batch order three appeals have been admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which are as follows: a) SVM Auto Products [2017 (349) ELT A220 (SC)] b) Hari Alloys Pvt Ltd [2016 (342) ELT A228 (SC)] c) Titan Industries Ltd [2016 (341) ELT A155 (SC)] 13. Revenue's appeal against judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Sandley Industries Ltd (supra) was dismissed on monetary limits by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, we find from the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a batch of several appeals have been tagged with the appeal of Union of India in the case of Indsur Global Ltd (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
