9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 477 - AT - Central ExciseDemands made for violation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT - This bench has in the case of M/S. SAS AUTOCOM ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD. AND SHRI S. SHYAM RAJ VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 2024 (11) TMI 343 - CESTAT CHENNAI , followed the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforementioned Judgements of the Honourable High Courts of Gujarat and Madras and has held 'Rule 8(3A) of Rules, 2002 is ultra vires of Article 14 of Constitution being unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and violative.' - in view of the above position in law as settled by the Honourable Constitutional Courts, which is being consistently followed by this Bench, there is no merit in the confirmation of demands made in the impugned order and hence the impugned order cannot sustain. Interest due on the duty amount paid by the Appellant - HELD THAT - While the impugned order has confirmed the demand of additional payment towards interest due after considering the amount paid by the Appellant, on the basis of the report dated 06.04.2015 of the Preventive Unit, Puducherry; in light of the affidavit filed by the Appellant duly supported by the chartered accountant s certificate, reiterating the payable interest as Rs.15,18,153/-, that has already been paid, we leave it to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the CA certificate, if felt necessary, and hold the Appellant to its affidavit. Registry is directed to forward a copy of the affidavit and the CA certificate filed to the jurisdictional Commissioner, while dispatching this order. Conclusion - Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is unconstitutional and invalid as it infringes upon the substantive right of an assessee to utilize CENVAT credit. The rule is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal question considered in this judgment is:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents The case revolves around Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which required assessees in default of duty payment to pay duty on consignment basis without utilizing CENVAT credit until the outstanding amount with interest was paid. This rule was challenged and subsequently declared unconstitutional by various High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India and the Madras High Court in Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India. These rulings held that the rule was ultra vires of the Constitution, specifically Article 14, for being unreasonable and arbitrary. Court's interpretation and reasoning The Tribunal noted that the issue of utilizing CENVAT credit during default is no longer res integra, as multiple judicial authorities have invalidated the condition in Rule 8(3A) as unconstitutional. The Tribunal followed the precedents set by the Gujarat and Madras High Courts, which struck down the rule as it infringed upon the substantive right of an assessee to utilize CENVAT credit. Key evidence and findings The appellant's submission included references to previous judgments where Rule 8(3A) was deemed unconstitutional. The appellant also provided an affidavit and a Chartered Accountant's certificate to substantiate the interest calculations for delayed duty payments, which were taken on record by the Tribunal. Application of law to facts The Tribunal applied the legal precedents to the facts of the case, determining that the demands made under Rule 8(3A) could not be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that the rule had been consistently held as unconstitutional by various High Courts and that the Department's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's decision was settled in the Supreme Court, reinforcing the invalidity of the rule. Treatment of competing arguments The Tribunal considered the department's arguments, which reiterated the findings of the impugned order. However, given the established legal precedents declaring Rule 8(3A) unconstitutional, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's position and ruled in favor of the appellant. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the demands made under Rule 8(3A) were unsustainable in law, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appellant's appeal with consequential benefits. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning "The issue as to whether the Assessee can utilise the CENVAT credit toward payment of duty when in default is no more res integra and many judicial authorities have held that the provision of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as ultravires to the Main Act." Core principles established
Final determinations on each issue
|
