2021 (4) TMI 625

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 2,65,12,542/- for contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by utilization of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,12,18,017/- during the period from July, 2006 to February, 2008 i.e. during forfeiture of the facility under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and payment of duty of Rs. 53,31,169/- from PLA on monthly basis during the said period instead of payment of duty, consignment wise. 2. Shri Kartick Kurmy, learned Advocate submits that, in the instant case, out of total duty demand of Rs. 2,65,12,542/- they have discharged duty of Rs. 2,12,18,017/- from CENVAT Credit and balance duty of Rs. 53,31,169/- is discharged from PLA along with interest of Rs. 9,26,268/-, on monthly basis. The duty of Rs. 2,12,18,017/- i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sandley Indusries Vs. UOI reported in 2015 (326) ELT 256 (P & H) and Tribunal in the case of Prakash Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Cus. And S.Tax reported in 2020-TIOL-1155- CESTAT-KOL. 5. The learned Advocate for the Appellant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2017-VIL-655-CAL-CE, wherein it is categorically held that when Rule 8(3A) is declared ultra vires by the different High Courts then the Revenue cannot take a different stand contrary to the said judgments. The Hon'ble Court further declared Rule 8(3A) as invalid which is not stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel further sub....