2016 (8) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rest of Rs. 14,321/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One only). Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearances of machinery parts falling under Chapter 84, 85, 86 and 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant is availing cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Central Excise Department proceeded against the appellant vide show-cause notice dated 03.01.2011 on the allegation that the appellant has defaulted in the monthly payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,47,032/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Thirty Two only) for the month of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is totally unsustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the submissions of the party and also ignoring the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,16,472/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two only) has been demanded from the appellant in cash in respect of the fact that an equivalent amount has been admittedly paid by them using cenvat credit. He further submitted that Rule 8(3A) under which the duty has been demanded was challenged being violative of the fundamental right before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Vs. Union o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of Shreeji Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in [2015 (320) E.L.T. 764 (Guj.)] wherein the Hon'ble High Court relying on its earlier decision in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. held that the show-cause notice, Order-in-Original and the appellate order which was based on Rule 8(3A) are invalid and cannot survive. Similarly the High Court of Madras in the case of A.R. Metallurgicals P Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in [2015 (322) E.L.T. 49 (Mad.)] followed the Gujarat High Court and the CESTAT has also followed the same decision in the case of Neesa Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in [2015 (321) E.L.T. 328 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. Learned counsel further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and stands set....