1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3852 OF 2011 (M/s. Indor Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. Union of India thr. Its Secretary & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 21, 2011. Heard Shri Badrinarayan with Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner – assessee and Shri Mishra, learned ASGI for respondents No. 1 to 6. Perused the impugned order. The consideration is limited because of provisions of Section 35F of the Excise Act. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the petitioner has reversed the amount of Rs.80,47,036/- availed as credit on service tax paid on input services. He has also paid interest amount of Rs.31,72,220/- upon it. It appears that an amount of Rs.1,97,49,204/- worth of rebate entitled to assessee is also appropriated by the revenue in the meanwhile. The assessee also appears to have reversed credit of duty paid on input used in manufacture of its final products totalling to Rs.13,97,65,631/-. In this situation, according to Shri 2 Badrinarayan, learned counsel the dispute is now revenue neutral and hence there is no question of the assessee being asked to deposit 50% of the drawback demanded or then in any form of security or guarantee. The learned ASGI points out that as the credit of service tax on input service is availed of, assessee was expected to avail the drawback at 3% and hence there is no substance in the contentions of Shri Badrinarayan, learned counsel. Having applied our mind, we find that interest of revenue can be sufficiently protected by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.2 Crores. The petitioner accordingly to furnish bank guarantee to Respondent No. 4 in the proforma used by the office of Respondent No. 4 for said purpose within a period of four weeks from today. The Bank guarantee to remain valid during the pendency of appeal and shall not be invoked till it is decided. The order passed by the Revisional authority is modified only to that extent. The rest of the order is maintained as it is. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.