9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 156 - AT - Central ExciseVires of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Default in payment of duty in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - confirmation of demands, required to be paid in cash - imposition of penalties - Held that - The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Indsur Global Ltd. vs. UOI 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has declared the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as unconstitutional. The said decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court stands followed by the Tribunal in number of cases - Subsequently the said decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. stands considered and followed by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s A. R. Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (5) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . It is noticed that though the issue has been held in favour of the assessee by the above referred decisions of various High Courts but Revenue has challenged the Hon ble Gujarat and Madras High Court s decision by filing a Special Leave Petition against the said judgment before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The SLP stands admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court alongwith grant of stay of proceedings - Tribunal in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Space Telelink Ltd. 2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT has taken note of the said development of staying the proceedings by the Hon ble Supreme Court. However it stands observed that the said submission of the Revenue is fallacious because the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association 1992 (4) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has observed that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a Lower Court or Authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself i.e. its reasoning. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided by various decisions, the impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Default in payment of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Constitutionality of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the decisions of various High Courts. 4. Admissibility of the decisions of various High Courts in light of the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Analysis: Issue 1: Default in payment of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 The appellants were found to have defaulted in payment of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which mandates timely duty payment. Consequently, proceedings were initiated resulting in the confirmation of demands for cash payments and imposition of penalties, despite the duty being initially paid using credit. Issue 2: Constitutionality of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, followed by several other High Courts, declared Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as unconstitutional. This decision was upheld by the Tribunal in various cases. The Revenue challenged these decisions by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which admitted the SLP and granted a stay on proceedings. Issue 3: Stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on High Courts' decisions The Tribunal noted the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the decisions of various High Courts but emphasized that such a stay does not negate the underlying reasoning of the judgments. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal maintained that the decisions of the High Courts should be followed until the Hon'ble Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling. Issue 4: Admissibility of High Courts' decisions in light of the Supreme Court's stay Citing various cases, the Tribunal reiterated that the decisions of High Courts, including the Gujarat, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana, and Madras High Courts, should be upheld until the Hon'ble Supreme Court conclusively decides on the matter. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders against the appellants and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding default in duty payment, the constitutionality of Rule 8(3A), and the impact of the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the decisions of various High Courts.
|
