9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1379 - AT - Central ExciseVires of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - reliance was placed on the ruling by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Held that - The said issue in respect of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is no more res integra in view of the decisions in the case of M/S BAKEWELL AGRO LTD., M/S INDIA SHOES LTD., RISHI MAHAJAN, DIRECTOR, M/S ENERSHELL ALLOYS & STEEL PVT. LTD., M/S S.P. METALTECH INDIA PVT. LTD., M/S MOHIT PAPER MILLS LTD. VERSUS CCE, MEERUT-I, CCE, KANPUR, CCE, NOIDA, CCE & ST, MEERUT 2018 (12) TMI 156 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD passed by this Tribunal - While passing the said final order this Tribunal have taken into consideration the fact of Hon ble Supreme Court admitting SLP challenging the said ruling by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. This Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that said ruling has been stayed by Hon ble Supreme Court. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Application of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the application of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue revolves around a ruling by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd., which declared Rule 8(3A) as unconstitutional. The Revenue challenged this ruling, citing the admission of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue is no longer res integra in light of its Final Order dated 28.09.2018, where it considered the Supreme Court's stay on the Gujarat High Court's decision. The Tribunal highlighted that similar decisions were followed by other High Courts, such as the Madras High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, further solidifying the position on Rule 8(3A). In the judgment, the Tribunal also referenced a case involving Space Telelink Ltd., where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasized that until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the existing decisions hold ground. This principle was upheld by the Tribunal in various cases, including one involving Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal reiterated that the stay granted by the Supreme Court does not nullify the underlying reasoning of the judgments, emphasizing the importance of following established legal precedents. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the Revenue's contention that the stay by the Supreme Court should prevent the application of the Gujarat High Court's decision. Citing the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association, the Tribunal clarified that a stay order does not invalidate the rationale behind a judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of multiple High Courts and granted relief to the appellants in the present case, rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue based on the established legal precedents and the stay granted by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the application of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in light of various High Court decisions and the stay granted by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's decision to follow established legal precedents and uphold the relief granted to the appellants showcases a consistent approach in interpreting and applying relevant laws and rulings in similar cases.
|
