Rule 8(3A) duty demand set aside after the Tribunal followed earlier decisions and High Court rulings.

Demand raised for non-payment of duty under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was treated as unsustainable, as the Tribunal followed its earlier batch decision and the supporting High Court rulings on the same issue. The text notes that the appellant's own earlier appeals had already been allowed on identical reasoning, and the impugned order was therefore not required to be sustained. The demand was set aside and consequential relief, if any, was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised for non-payment of duty under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal was disposed of by following the Tribunal's earlier batch decision, which in turn followed the decisions of the High Courts on the same issue. As the appellant's own earlier appeals had already been allowed on the same reasoning, the impugned order was not required to be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand based on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

---