JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. - These two appeals under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenge the common order dated 6th April, 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. The Revenue has urged the following identical 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, the respondent was required to pay excise duty on removal of goods on monthly basis. Admittedly, the respondent defaulted in paying the duty under the above Rule within the prescribed period, thus triggering the application of Rule 8(3) of the said Rule which reads as under : "Rule 8. Manner of payment.- (1) (2) and (3)....... (3A) If the assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond thirty days from the due date, as prescribed in sub-Rule (1), then notwithstanding anything contained in said sub-Rule (1) and sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee shall pay excise duty on each consignment at the time of removal, without utilizing the CENVAT credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest therein and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these Rules shall follow." (emphasis supplied) Nevertheless, even after the above default, the respondent continued clearing goods on payment of duty from its Cenvat account instead of paying the same as through its PLA. This led to issue of showcause notices dated 9th December, 2010 and 13th May, 2011 demanding duty for removal of goods in breach of Rule 8(3A) of the said Rules. The same was confirmed by the two Authorities under the Act. 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. 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 case of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra). We note that once Rule 8(3A) of the said Rules has been declared as unconstitutional to the extent it prohibited utilizing Cenvat credit, the discharge of payment of duty on the final products, the said provision to the above extent ceases to apply. The Act and the said Rules being all India in its application, the decision rendering a part of it as unconstitutional would equally apply within the State of Maharashtra, in the absence of any contrary view or the appellant showing that the view of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) is exfacie unsustainable. In fact, in identical circumstances, where a different High Court has declared a provision unconstitutional and there is no contrary view, this Court has in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 2 ELT 624 and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Valson Dyeing Bleaching & Printing Works, (2010)259 ELT 53 has refused to entertain the appeals from the orders of the Tribunal which have followed the decision of the another High Court declaring a particular provision to be an unconstitutional. In fact, in Godavaridevi Ssaraf (supra) this Court has observed as under : "8......... In fact, in Godavaridevi Ssaraf (supra) this Court has observed as under : "8......... It should not be overlooked that the Income Tax Act is an All India statute and if an Incometax Tribunal in Madras, in view of the decision of the Madras High Court, has no proceed on the footing that Section 140A(3) was nonexistent, 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 and an authority like an Incometax 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 any other High Court on that question..................." The same principle would apply in the present case. Therefore, no interference with the view of the Tribunal is called for. Moreover, mere filing and admission of the appeal would not amount to a stay of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra). Thus, Rule 8(3A) of the said Rules to the extent it is declared unconstitutional continues to be so. In these facts, as the Tribunal was following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) and not having jurisdiction to go into the vires of the statute, no independent reasons were required to be given by the Tribunal. Thus, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. No distinguishing features in these two cases with above cases in law and/or facts has been shown to us, which would justify our taking a different view in these two appeals. 6. However, it must be pointed out that Mr. Thus, not entertained. Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. No distinguishing features in these two cases with above cases in law and/or facts has been shown to us, which would justify our taking a different view in these two appeals. 6. However, it must be pointed out that Mr. Ochani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant invited our attention to an order dated 5th February, 2018 passed by this Court in Central Excise Appeal Nos.24 of 2016 and 28 of 2016 wherein, the Court was informed that an identical issue had been raised before the Apex Court and this Court had adjourned both the appeals sine die. This for awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on appeal filed by the State against the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Limited (supra). It must be pointed out that the aforesaid order dated 5th February, 2018 was not pointed out to the bench which passed an order on 25th April, 2019 (M.S. Sanklecha,J. was a member of the bench which passed the order on 25th April, 2019). Thus, this Court examined the issue on merits and passed a final order on 25th April, 2019. 7. As our order dated 25th April, 2019 has already taken a view on the issue raised in these two appeals, therefore, we are inclined to follow the same. We, thus dispose of the present appeal. 8. Accordingly, for the reasons indicated herein above, both the appeal are dismissed.