Tribunal overturns central excise duty demand and penalties, citing Rule 8(3A) invalidity.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for central excise duty against the company for the months of October 2011 to July 2012. Relying on previous cases challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the tribunal held that the demand for full cash payment was unsustainable. The penalties imposed on the company were also set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the payment of central excise duty by a company for the months of October 2011 to July 2012, specifically focusing on the utilization of CENVAT credit and cash payments.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Alleged failure to pay full amount of central excise duty
The appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, was found to have failed to pay the full amount of central excise duty for the months of October 2011 to July 2012. The department alleged that the appellant cleared finished goods valued at Rs. 13,29,26,801/- for home consumption, on which central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,47,38,289/- was payable. The appellant paid a portion of this duty using CENVAT credit and the remaining balance in cash from their PLA account. A show cause notice was issued, leading to an order confirming the demand of central excise duty against the appellant.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002
The department contended that the appellant should have paid the entire default amount in cash as per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the tribunal referred to previous cases where the vires of Rule 8(3A) were challenged. High Courts in various cases had struck down the constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A), and appeals against these decisions were pending before the Supreme Court. The tribunal followed the precedent set by these cases and held that the demand for payment was unsustainable, setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant.

Conclusion:
Considering the legal precedents and the constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) under scrutiny, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief to the appellant. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2023, aligning with the judgments from previous cases challenging the same legal issue.

---