2018 (3) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Adv. for Respondents-1 to 3. The petitioner-Company has challenged before this Court the impugned recovery proceedings through garnishee proceedings though the petitioner-Company did not challenge the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court namely the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Annexure-E dated 21.11.2014 u/s.35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e demand in question raised under the said Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be enforced against him. Hence, he did not prefer the regular appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the Respondents-Authorities, however, submitted that the appeal has not been filed before the Tribunal more than three years has become time barred and for no good r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt is of the opinion that the fallacious argument of the petitioner-company that since the Gujarat High Court had struck down the said Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the impugned demand had no legs to stand. So long as the order passed by the Commissioner of Excise (Appeals), Mysuru, holds the field, the demand in question was recoverable from the petitioner. 6. In the circumsta....