9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2015 wherein the 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 for the period under dispute. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Sponge Iron falling under Tariff Item No. 72031000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue has alleged that the appellant has failed to pay the Central Excise duty for the month of April, May and August, 2012 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 June, 2012 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court has already disposed of the matter as the Department has withdrawn the appeal [Union of India & ors. v. Indsur Global Ltd. - 2024 (7) TMI 1559-SC (LB); ref. Civil Appeal No. 6652 of 2018 & ors. dated 29.07.2024]. In view of these submissions, he has prayed for setting aside the demand of duty confirmed and penalty imposed on the appellant. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and accordingly, prays for upholding the demands raised against the appellant. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We observe that the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 09.07.2024 has held that matter should be kept pending and is to be taken only after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and hence, confirmed the impugned demand by treating the duty paid through utilization of CENVAT Credit as 'unpaid and recoverable'. However, we find that if the payment of duty through CENVAT is considered as legal, then there is no violation and there is no liability of duty payment by the appellant. 9.1. Considering the fact that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have been declared 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 utili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT accruals of subsequent months or for using the CENVAT account for payment of duty during the said period for the alleged contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 10. In view of the above discussion and by relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order by denying the payment made by the appellant through CENVAT Credit is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 10.1. Since the demand raised against the appellant does not survive, the question of demanding interest or imposing penalty does not arise. 11. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Operativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
