9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d provision to the above extent ceases to apply. The Act and the said Rules being all India in its application, the decision rendering a part of it as unconstitutional would equally apply within the State of Maharashtra, in the absence of any contrary view or the appellant showing that the view of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. [ 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] is ex-facie unsustainable. The question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Both the appeals are dismissed. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 4 OF 2019 ALONG WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 7 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2019 - M.S.SANKLECHA, M.S. SONAK, JJ. Mr. Ram Ochani with Mr. Sham Walve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eyond thirty days from the due date, as prescribed in sub-Rule (1), then notwithstanding anything contained in said sub-Rule (1) and sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee shall pay excise duty on each consignment at the time of removal, without utilizing the CENVAT credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest therein and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these Rules shall follow. (emphasis supplied) Nevertheless, even after the above default, the respondent continued clearing goods on payment of duty from its Cenvat account instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all India in its application, the decision rendering a part of it as unconstitutional would equally apply within the State of Maharashtra, in the absence of any contrary view or the appellant showing that the view of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) is ex-facie unsustainable. In fact, in identical circumstances, where a different High Court has declared a provision unconstitutional and there is no contrary view, this Court has in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 2 ELT 624 and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Valson Dyeing Bleaching Printing Works, 259 ELT 53 has refused to entertain the appeals from the orders of the Tribunal which have followed the decision of the another High Court decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra). Thus, Rule 8(3A) of the said Rules to the extent it is declared unconstitutional continues to be so. In these facts, as the Tribunal was following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) and not having jurisdiction to go into the vires of the statute, no independent reasons were required to be given by the Tribunal. Thus, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. No distinguishing features in these two cases with above cases in law and/or facts has been shown to us, which would justify our taking a different view in these two appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
