CENVAT credit confined to the specific levy, while an unaddressed limitation plea may be remitted for fresh consideration.

CENVAT credit taken in respect of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act cannot be used to discharge duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, because the credit is statutorily confined to the levy from which it arises. The Tribunal treated cross-utilisation under a different enactment as impermissible in law. On the limitation objection, the matter was not finally examined below; as neither adjudicating authority had dealt with it properly, the plea was remitted for fresh consideration after observance of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit taken on additional duty of excise leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act could be utilised for payment of duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act; (ii) Whether the objection of limitation raised by the appellant required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit taken on additional duty of excise leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act could be utilised for payment of duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act.

Analysis: The credit was availed in respect of one levy, and the Tribunal found that such credit was statutorily confined to discharge of liability under that very levy. Utilisation of the same credit for payment of duty under a different enactment was held to be contrary to law and not permissible.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection of limitation raised by the appellant required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that neither the adjudicating authority nor the first appellate authority had dealt with the limitation plea in its correct perspective. Since the plea had not been properly adjudicated, the matter on that limited question required reconsideration after observing the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The limitation issue was left open for fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The merits were decided against the appellant, but the question of limitation was remitted for fresh adjudication, making the disposal only partial.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit attributable to one specified duty cannot be used to discharge liability under a different levy, and a limitation plea not adjudicated below may be remitted for fresh consideration.

---