2019 (6) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ical question of law in both the appeals 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 through its PLA in the face of Rule 8(3) of the said Rules?" 3 We note that an identical issue was raised by the Revenue in Central Excise Appeal Nos. 29 of 2019 and 31 of 2019 and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 25th April, 2019. 4 On 25th April, 2019 while disposing of the above appeals, we had recorded as under: "The respondent manufactures copper tubes and pipelines. In terms of Rule 8(1) of the said Rules....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sur 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. 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 which has admitted the Revenue's appeal on 10th July, 2018. Thus, the present appeal ought to be admitted and kept pending till the decision of the Apex Court on the above appeal in cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 and an authority like an Income-tax Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of....