https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375606 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. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375606 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375606