Court upholds earned credits cannot lapse post-scheme withdrawal. No new legal questions.

The High Court upheld the principle that once credit is legally earned, it cannot be arbitrarily lapsed, even after the withdrawal of a specific credit scheme. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the assessee's case aligned with legal precedents, and no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that altering the scheme post-facto would impact the rights of the assessees, citing previous judgments and observations from the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 6/02-C.E. (N.T.) and its withdrawal in Notification No. 8/03-C.E. (N.T.)
2. Validity of utilizing Deemed Credit against Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002
3. Determination of lapsing of unutilized deemed credit earned before withdrawal of the scheme
4. Applicability of legal principles regarding lapsing of credit and utilization post-withdrawal
5. Challenge to Tribunal's decision on the utilization of Cenvat credit and deemed credit

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the withdrawal of the Deemed Credit Scheme under Notification No. 6/02-C.E. (N.T.) and its subsequent replacement by the Cenvat credit facility under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for textile industries. The dispute arose when the respondent continued to avail the Deemed Credit despite the withdrawal, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent penalties for wrongful utilization.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) deliberated on whether the unutilized deemed credit earned before the withdrawal on 1-4-2003 lapsed or not. Citing legal precedents like the TATA Engineering case and decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, it was concluded that the unutilized deemed credit could still be utilized for duty payment until 1-4-2003.

3. The Tribunal, in a similar case, had ruled that once Cenvat credit is legally earned, it does not lapse, even after the withdrawal of deemed credit. The Department challenged this decision, arguing that the utilization of deemed credit post-withdrawal was improper and against the law.

4. The High Court, after considering the arguments and legal principles, found that the issue was already settled by previous judgments. Referring to the Dipak Vegetable Oil case and observations from the Supreme Court, it was established that rights acquired under a statutory provision cannot be taken away retrospectively unless explicitly provided. The Court emphasized that altering the scheme post-facto would impact the rights of the assessees.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the assessee's case aligned with the legal precedents, and no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. The Court upheld the principle that once credit is legally earned, it cannot be arbitrarily lapsed, even after the withdrawal of a specific credit scheme.

---