TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,30,338/- from Cenvat account and Rs. 36,962/- from PLA. Thus they had defaulted in payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,93,382/- which was subsequently paid by them on 05.05.2009 alongwith interest resulting in delay of 34 days. During May, 2009 the appellant had cleared goods involving central excise duty of Rs. 4,69,856/- and paid duty of Rs. 3,42,654/- from Cenvat account and Rs. 30,906/- from PLA and thus defaulted in payment of balance amount of Rs. 96,296/- which was subsequently paid by them on 21.07.2009 alongwith interest of Rs. 1700/- resulting in delay of 45 days. In terms of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as CER,02 ) the defaulted amount should have been paid in thirty days alongwith interest. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. I find that the issue before me is that whether the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, are invocable in the facts of the case or not? 7. The said issue has been decided by the Hon'ble High court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Reported in 2014 (310)ELT 833 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, are ultra virus. Although the said decision has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Apex court and the Hon'ble Apex court has granted the stay of operation of the order of the Hon'ble High court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the appellate authority after the quashing of the order of the appellate authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the appellate authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the appellate authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the appellate auth....