Cenvat Credit Rule amendment dispute: demand quashed where the adjudicating authority failed to decide clarificatory versus prospective effect.

Excise demand under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was quashed because the adjudicating authority failed to address the taxpayer's central contention that the amended Rule 7 was clarificatory or, alternatively, whether it applied only prospectively. The Bombay HC held that the existing order could not sustain the demand when this core issue had been raised but left unanswered. It did not rule on the amendment's true character and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping the show cause notice alive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned excise demand could be quashed where the adjudicating authority had not addressed the contention that the amended Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was clarificatory and applicable to the period in question.

Analysis: The petition concerned recovery of Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that the adjudication order proceeded on a finding of violation and consequent penalty and interest, but did not deal with the central contention that the amendment substituting the word used in Rule 7 was clarificatory or, alternatively, whether it operated prospectively only from its introduction. As that issue had been squarely raised but left unanswered, the Court held that the demand could not be sustained on the existing order. The Court expressly stated that it was not deciding the amendment's true character and that the question must be considered afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The impugned demand was quashed and set aside, the show cause notice was kept alive, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on the unresolved issue.

---