IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA EXCISE APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2008 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ... Appellant Versus GOA ANTIBIOTICS AND PHARMACEUTICS LTD., ... Respondent Mr. J. F. Mello, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. H. K. Maingi, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 19th January, 2009 P.C. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No.E/155/07. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has held that the controversy involved in the matter is covered by the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Lucid Colloids Ltd., vs. UOI, 2005 (200) ELT 377 (Raj), by which the Rajasthan High Court has held that the provisions of Rule 8(3)are invalid. It is pointed out that the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court has been accepted by the Department and it has not been taken further. It is also submitted that the said Judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in some other cases also. 2. Considering the said submissions, we are of the view that the CESTAT was justified in remanding the matter for adjudication for limited purpose of re-quantification of the interest, in accordance with law. 3. In our view, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.