Appellant's Adjournment Request Denied; Tribunal Allows Appeal on Central Excise Duty Rule Challenge

The appellant's adjournment request was denied, and the appeal proceeded due to its narrow scope. The appellant contested the demand for Central Excise duty, arguing against the applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite conflicting High Court decisions, the Tribunal followed the Jurisdictional High Court's ruling, holding Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and permitting the use of accumulated Cenvat Credit for Central Excise Duty payment during a default period.

---

---

Issues:
Adjournment request for the appellant, applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Adjournment Request for the Appellant:
The appellant requested an adjournment, but it was declined as the appeal was considered to be in a narrow compass. The appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of the Revenue's representative.

Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The appellant was alleged to have contravened Rules 4 & 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, leading to a demand for Central Excise duty. The appellant argued that Rule 8(3A) had been struck down by various High Courts as ultra vires, citing relevant case laws. The Advocate contended that the accumulated Cenvat Credit could be used for Central Excise Duty payment even during a default period. The Revenue acknowledged the High Courts' decisions but highlighted that the Supreme Court had admitted Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging those decisions and stayed their operation. The Tribunal analyzed the High Courts' decisions and noted that the Jurisdictional High Court had held Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires based on the Gujarat High Court's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no restriction on utilizing accumulated Cenvat Credit during a default period for Central Excise Duty payment. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---