https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459070 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal and set aside the demand confirmation. The case involved default in duty payment beyond thirty days and violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant argued that Rule 8(3A) was struck down as unconstitutional by HCs. CESTAT held that Gujarat HC and Madras HC had declared Rule 8(3A) unconstitutional as it arbitrarily prohibited use of Cenvat credit for duty payment, infringing substantive rights. Since the provision was declared unconstitutional by HCs, it became non-existent and the demand could not sustain. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 19:27:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459070 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal and set aside the demand confirmation. The case involved default in duty payment beyond thirty days and violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant argued that Rule 8(3A) was struck down as unconstitutional by HCs. CESTAT held that Gujarat HC and Madras HC had declared Rule 8(3A) unconstitutional as it arbitrarily prohibited use of Cenvat credit for duty payment, infringing substantive rights. Since the provision was declared unconstitutional by HCs, it became non-existent and the demand could not sustain. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459070