Cash refund of unutilised CENVAT credit on factory closure was held not admissible where the SLP dismissal left law open.

Cash refund of unutilised CENVAT credit on closure of a factory was held not admissible, following the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Gauri Plasticulture. The Tribunal noted that dismissal of the Revenue's special leave petition in Slovak India, with the question of law left open, did not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 and therefore was not binding precedent. On that basis, the earlier SLP dismissal could not conclusively establish entitlement to refund, and the assessee's claim for refund of accumulated credit failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of unutilised CENVAT credit lying in the account on closure of the factory is admissible.

Analysis: The claim for cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was examined in the light of the legal position considered by the Bombay High Court in Gauri Plasticulture, which in turn discussed the Karnataka High Court's view in Slovak India. The Tribunal noted that dismissal of the Revenue's special leave petition in Slovak India was on facts and with the question of law left open, and therefore did not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It further held that the earlier order could not be treated as conclusively settling the entitlement to refund on closure of the factory. Following the reasoning of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal held that refund of the unutilised credit could not be granted.

Conclusion: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on closure of the factory was not admissible and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim failed and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Dismissal of a special leave petition leaving the question of law open does not create binding precedent or a declaration of law under Article 141, and cash refund of unutilised CENVAT credit on closure of factory is not admissible on that basis.

---