9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), PIN - 723 147 (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") against the Order-in-Original No. 56/COMMR/BOL/16 dated 29.02.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order") wherein demand has been raised against the appellant by denying utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of duty during the defaulted period in terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that it was alleged that the appellant had failed to pay the Central Excise duty for the month of September, 2013 and October, 2013 by the due date, also failed to pay the duty along with interest within thirty days from the due date of payment and finally, failed to pay the duty consignment-wise during the period from November,2013 to July, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be denied to the appellant. He therefore prayed for setting aside the demands of duty confirmed and penalty imposed on the appellant. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that that the issue pertaining to demands made in terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide their Order in CEXA 21/2024, IA No: GA/1/2024 dated 09.07.2024 have passed an Order holding that the matter should be kept pending and is to be taken only after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.16523/2015 is passed. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We observe that the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red ultra vires by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) and also by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sandley Industries (supra), we are of the view that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the appellant for utilization in payment of duty during the defaulted period. 8.1. This view has also been held by this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Windows MFG. Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata [Final Order No. 76537 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 in Excise Appeal No. 433 of 2011 - CESTAT, Kolkata]. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below : "7. Considering the fact that the provision of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rule, 2002 has been declared ultra vires by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
