Ultra vires rule cannot support a duty demand, and revised ER-1 return acceptance was upheld on that basis.

Acceptance of a revised ER-1 return was directed subject to scrutiny and verification, because the statutory objection raised against it had no surviving legal basis. The demand under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained once that rule had been held ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court. On that footing, the Commissioner (Appeals) relief was affirmed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting acceptance of the revised ER-1 return could be sustained and whether the demand based on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was maintainable.

Analysis: The revised return was directed to be accepted subject to scrutiny and verification. The basis of the demand was the consequence flowing from Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since the Gujarat High Court had already held Rule 8(3A) to be ultra vires, the foundation for the Revenue's challenge did not survive.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained affirmation of the relief granted by the appellate authority, and the duty demand founded on Rule 8(3A) did not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand resting on a rule declared ultra vires cannot be sustained, and acceptance of a revised return may be directed where the statutory objection has no legal footing.

---