Appeal dismissed; Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 declared unconstitutional; no costs, applications closed.

The appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the CESTAT's order, was rejected. The Tribunal's decision, which allowed the assessee's appeal by declaring Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as unconstitutional, was upheld. No substantial question of law warranted interference. No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The case involves an appeal u/s 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Final Order No. A/30001/2020, dated 3-1-2020 in Appeal No. E/1108/2011, dated 3-1-2020 [(2023) 12 Centax 93 (Tri. - Hyd.)].

Issue 1: Default of monthly payment of duty and denial of utilization of Cenvat credit under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (September, 2009 to August, 2010)
The Learned CESTAT considered the matter in light of previous judgments by High Courts, including High Court of Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana, Madras, and Bombay. These High Courts had declared Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as ultra vires the Constitution. Relying on these judgments, the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise. The Tribunal's decision was deemed not arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to law as multiple High Courts had struck down the provision. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and no substantial question of law was found to interfere with the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, and no costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous applications in the appeal were closed.

---