2019 (5) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in two appeals filed by the respondent emanating from two separate show-cause notices dated 9th December, 2010 and 13th May, 2011 seeking to recover excise duty to the extent it cleared its final goods by utilizing the Cenvat credit instead of paying from their Personal Ledger Account (PLA) in breach of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short "the said Rules"). 2. The appellant Revenue has urged the following identical re-framed question of law for our consideration : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent during the default period can pay its excise duty liability on its final products through its Cenvat account and not only throug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confirmed by the two Authorities under the Act. 6. In appeal the Tribunal allowed the respondent assessee's appeal by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2014) 310 ELT 833 which declared that to the extent Rule 8(3A) of the said Rules prohibited an assessee from utilizing Cenvat credit to pay the excise duty on removal of its goods is unconstitutional. Thus, allowed the appeal of the respondent. 7. Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue submits that the impugned order is without reasons, thus bad. Moreover, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) is now a subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Tribunal in Madras, in view of the decision of the Madras High Court, has no proceed on the footing that Section 140A(3) was non-existent, the order of penalty thereunder cannot be imposed by the authority under the Act. Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. When the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty it did not go into the question of intra vires or ultra vires. It did not go into the question of constitutionality of Section 140A(3). That section was already declared ultra vires by a competent High Court in the country an....