Remand after Rule 8(3A) was struck down, requiring fresh consideration of the excise demand under the later legal position.

The dispute concerned Cenvat credit use during default after fortnightly payment facility was withdrawn, and the Tribunal noted that the adjudication predated the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Indsur Global striking down Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In light of that later legal position, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after granting a personal hearing, so the demand and the effect of the invalidation of Rule 8(3A) could be examined at the first instance. The demand was not finally sustained or set aside on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand should be re-examined in the light of the later judgment declaring Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ultra vires and, accordingly, whether the matter required remand to the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The dispute arose from the appellant's use of Cenvat credit during the period of default after the facility of fortnightly payment had been withdrawn. The record shows that the impugned adjudication predated the Gujarat High Court's decision in Indsur Global, which subsequently struck down Rule 8(3A). In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate that the controversy be reconsidered afresh by the original authority after granting personal hearing, so that the demand and the effect of the later legal position could be examined in the first instance.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with the later legal position, which is in favour of the assessee to the extent of reopening the dispute.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed for fresh adjudication, and the demand was not finally sustained or set aside on merits.

---