ALOM EXTRUSION LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail an order-in-original dated January 31, 2017.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners had suffered a show cause notice premised upon Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He submits that, the vires of such Rule as it stood at that material point of time was considered by three different High Courts. He refers to four reported decisions and submits that, such Rule was found to be ultra vires the Constitution of India. He relies upon 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.) (Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India), (2015) 62 taxmann.com 275 (Madras) : 2015 (323) E.L.T. 489 (Mad.) (Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India), (2015) 52 GST 986 (Punjab and Haryana) = 2015 (326) E.L.T. 256 (P and H) (Sandley Industries v. Union of India) and (2015) 49 GST 440 (Gujarat) = 2015 (320) E.L.T. 764 (Guj.) (Shreeji Surface Coatings (P) Ltd. v. Union of India) in support of his contentions. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submits that, the Special Leave Petition directed against Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) was admitted by order dated September 24, 2015 and that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restrained recovery of the amount assessed. He seeks an interim protection till the disposal of the writ petition.

(3.) Learned advocate for the department requires time to take instructions.