2015 (8) TMI 899 - HC - Central Excise

Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - Violation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11Aof the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - Judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Indsur (2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) is decided almost around nine months ago. So far the department has not preferred any appeal to challenge the said decision of this Court in the Honourable Apex Court, hence in our opinion, the ratio expounded by this Court in the Indsur (2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) still holds the field - since the judgement of this Court is so far not challenged before Honourable the Apex Court and therefore, it holds the field, we are of the opinion that the CESTAT (West Zonal) Bench, Ahmedabad has not committed any error or irregularities in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue by the impugned order. - no substantial questions are involved in this appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate tribunal's order under Central Excise Act, 1944 based on constitutional validity of procedural provision (Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002).

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, confirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The substantial questions of law raised include the constitutionality of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the applicability of a judgment striking down a provision of law to other cases. The respondent failed to pay duty for June 2006 on time, leading to a show cause notice for non-compliance with Rule 8(3A) and imposition of penalties. The CESTAT rejected the appeal, citing the judgment in a previous case, Indsur Global Ltd Vs. Union of India. The appellant argued that the department plans to challenge the Indsur judgment in the Supreme Court, seeking admission of the appeal. However, the High Court noted that the Indsur judgment remained unchallenged by the department for almost nine months, rendering it valid and applicable. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, stating that no substantial questions were involved in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.