Cenvat credit restoration after PLA payment remains unresolved, with the issue referred for Larger Bench consideration.

A dispute arose on whether credit of Additional Duty of Excise wrongly used to pay basic excise duty could be restored suo motu in the Cenvat account after the amount was later paid through PLA, or whether the assessee had to pursue refund. The Tribunal noted conflicting views on the effect of the retrospective amendment and recovery mechanism under the Finance legislation, and observed that the issue had already produced contrary decisions. No substantive determination was made; the matter was directed to be placed before the President for reference to a Larger Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit of Additional Duty of Excise, goods of special importance, wrongly utilised for payment of basic excise duty and later made good through payment from PLA could be restored suo motu in the Cenvat credit account, or whether the assessee was required to seek refund.

Analysis: The dispute turned on conflicting Tribunal views as to whether the corrective payment through PLA entitled the assessee to restore equivalent credit in the AED credit account, or whether such restoration could be made only through the refund machinery. The matter involved the effect of the retrospective amendment and the recovery mechanism introduced by the Finance legislation, but the Bench noted that the question had already generated contrary decisions and had been referred in another matter to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution.

Conclusion: No final decision on the substantive issue was rendered and the question was directed to be placed before the President for reference to a Larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not decided on merits and the controversy regarding suo motu restoration of credit remained open for determination by a Larger Bench.

---