CENVAT credit reversal and retrospective Rule 6 relief depend on valid precedent and timely application.

Where a tribunal proceeds on a Larger Bench ruling that is later reversed by the Bombay HC, its acceptance of subsequent reversal of CENVAT credit in place of payment under Rule 6(3)(b) cannot be sustained on that basis. The discussion also notes that the amended Rule 6, retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 2010, may still be considered for relief if the assessee files an application with supporting documents within the time directed, and the claim is examined in accordance with law on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was liable to pay 8% of the total price of exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, and whether subsequent reversal of CENVAT credit could be accepted in place of such payment. (ii) Whether the assessee could seek consideration of the benefit of the amended Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010.

Issue (i): The impugned tribunal order had proceeded on the basis of a Larger Bench decision that was later reversed by the Bombay High Court. In view of that reversal, the foundation of the tribunal's reasoning no longer survived, and the tribunal's acceptance of subsequent reversal of credit could not be sustained on the basis on which it had decided the matter.

Conclusion: The tribunal's decision on the main tax liability issue was set aside, and the assessee's contention on that point did not prevail.

Issue (ii): The amended Rule 6, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect, was held capable of being considered if the assessee made an application with supporting documents within the time directed by the Court. Such consideration was to be undertaken in accordance with law and on merits, in light of the amended rule.

Conclusion: The assessee was permitted to seek consideration of the retrospective amendment benefit by making the prescribed application within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in challenging the tribunal's order, while preserving a limited opportunity for the assessee to seek relief under the retrospectively amended rule through the prescribed application process.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal decision based on a later-overruled precedent cannot stand, but retrospective statutory amendment benefits may still be pursued where the Court permits consideration in accordance with law.

---