Reversal of excise credit treated as non-availment, so no substantial question of law arose and the appeal failed.

Reversal of excise credit was treated as putting the assessee in the position of having not availed the credit for the relevant purpose. On that basis, the Court held that the challenge to the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 57AC did not raise any substantial question of law, and the appeal failed. The reasoning rejected the contention that mere initial availment of credit continued to govern despite later reversal, and applied the principle that reversal neutralises the earlier availment for the issue in dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interpretation of Rule 57AC of the Central Excise Rules was correct and whether the appeal gave rise to any substantial question of law in view of the effect of reversal of credit.

Analysis: The appeal proceeded on the contention that once credit is availed, subsequent reversal does not alter the position and Rule 57AD ought to be applied. The Court relied on the principle that credit facility, once availed and later reversed, is to be treated as not availed. In that view, no substantial question of law was shown to arise from the Tribunal's decision.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's view failed and the appeal was dismissed, resulting in a decision in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where credit availed under the relevant excise credit rules is reversed, the assessee is treated as not having availed the credit for the relevant purpose, and no substantial question of law arises on that basis.

---