Court dismisses challenge to Finance Act provisions, directs petitioner to furnish tax arrears security. Cenvat credit claim allowed for examination.

The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Acts of 2008 and 2010, and sections 75(5)(h) and 76 of the Finance Act, 2010. The court directed the petitioner to furnish security for arrears of tax pending the apex court's decision, with all contentions to be adjudicated before the second respondent. The petitioner's claim for Cenvat credit was allowed to be presented before the Commissioner of Service Tax for examination, including other claims, subject to scrutiny for eligibility.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and the Finance Act, 2010.
2. Challenge to the provisions of section 75(5)(h) and section 76 of the Finance Act, 2010.
3. Extending Cenvat credit to the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to declare certain provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Acts of 2008 and 2010 as null and void, ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also aimed to declare all notifications and circulars issued under these Acts as null and void. The respondent filed objections denying the petition's claims. The court considered similar contentions in a previous case and directed petitioners to furnish security for arrears of tax pending a decision by the apex court. The court held that the same directions applied to the present petitioner, disposing of the case subject to the apex court's decision.

2. Another issue raised in the petition was the challenge to the provisions of section 75(5)(h) and section 76 of the Finance Act, 2010. The petitioner sought to declare these provisions as null and void, arbitrary, and ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the directions issued in a previous case applied to the present petitioner as well, subject to the decision of the apex court. The court reserved the petitioner's right to seek necessary applications based on the apex court's decision.

3. The third issue involved the extension of Cenvat credit to the petitioner, which was claimed but not considered by the authorities. The petitioner contended that the amounts claimed had been remitted to the respondent and argued for entitlement to Cenvat credit. The respondent disputed this claim, stating that ineligible credits were included in the claim, and Cenvat credit on such ineligible credits should not be allowed. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner of Service Tax to present its claim for Cenvat credit, allowing the second respondent to examine the claim on merits and in accordance with the law. The court kept all contentions open for adjudication before the second respondent, who was also directed to examine all other claims put forth by the petitioner.

---