2003 (12) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... By the said letter, the petitioners were called upon to reverse the credit to the extent of Rs. 1,59,245/- taken during the period 25-8-1989 to 28-8-1989. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of Notification dated 25-8-1989. 2.While admitting the petition and granting interim relief, this Court on 18-10-1989 stayed the operation of Notification dated 25-8-1989 and directed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the petitioners will be entitled to utilise the credit already accrued to them up to 25-8-1989 as per Notification No. 27/87, dated 1-3-1987. In the said order the undertaking of the petitioners that if the petitioners ultimately fail then they would abide by the orders of the Court regarding cr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of the respondents that during September, 1989 to March, 1990 the petitioners have utilised credit simultaneously under both the Notifications which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and therefore the petitioners must be directed to refund the excess credit of Rs. 16,43,710.50 wrongly availed by them. 5.The issue raised in this petition was whether the accumulated credit under Notification No. 27/87 could be availed of even after Notification No. 27/87 was rescinded on 25-8-1989. From the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., (supra), it is clear that even after the Notification of 27/87 was rescinded on 25-8-1989 the accumulated credit could be utilised. Therefore the interim relief ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondents were agreeable to allow the petitioners to utilise that credit hereafter. However, this offer was not acceptable to the Revenue because according to the Revenue under the present Cenvat Rules there is no provision for adjustment of the balance money credit accrued under Notification No. 45/89. In this view of the matter, we had no option but to decide the petition on its own merits. 7.As stated hereinabove, the only issue raised in the petition is whether the accumulated credit under Notification No. 27/87 lapses from 25-8-1989. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Tungabhadra Industries (supra), the accumulated credit under Notification No. 27/87 though rescinded on 25-8-1989 is a vested right and does not lapse and....