Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund or unrestricted utilisation of excess Modvat credit lying in the RG 23-A account, and whether clause (3) of the second proviso to Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) was invalid for taking away a claimed benefit.
Analysis: Under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, credit of duty on inputs was available only to the extent and subject to the conditions specified by notification. The earlier notification of 1 March 1989 itself had already provided that, for inputs falling under heading 39.04 used in goods under heading 59.03, any excess credit in the RG 23-A account would not be refunded, adjusted, or utilised for any other excisable goods. The later notification of 1 March 1994 did not create that restriction; it continued the same legal position. The assessee therefore had no enforceable right to claim refund of the excess balance, and the plea of legitimate expectation could not override the notification scheme.
Conclusion: The challenge to clause (3) of the second proviso to Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) failed, and the assessee was not entitled to refund of the excess credit.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a concessionary input-credit scheme expressly limits refund or further utilisation of excess credit by notification, no vested or enforceable right arises to claim such refund contrary to the notified conditions.