Cenvat credit on fuel inputs and interest liability turn on exempt output use and available input credit during default

Cenvat credit on inputs used as fuel was held inadmissible where the inputs were used in the manufacture of exempted final products, applying the binding Supreme Court position on exclusion of credit for inputs used for exempt output. The challenge to the credit therefore failed. On interest, the document states that the availability of utilizable input credit during the period of default must be examined to see whether the demand could have been met by adjustment; if credit was available, interest would not arise on the adjusted amount, and any liability would be confined to the shortfall. The interest issue was remitted for fresh factual determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on inputs used as fuel where part of the inputs was used in the manufacture of exempted final products; (ii) whether the question of interest liability required inquiry into the availability of utilizable input credit during the period of default.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on inputs used as fuel where part of the inputs was used in the manufacture of exempted final products.

Analysis: The dispute was governed by the scheme of the relevant Cenvat Credit Rules and the exclusion applicable to inputs used as fuel. The question stood covered by the binding decision of the Supreme Court holding that credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products is not admissible. In view of that binding position, the appellate orders sustaining credit could not stand.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of interest liability required inquiry into the availability of utilizable input credit during the period of default.

Analysis: Although liability to interest on default is automatic, the available credit position during the relevant period had to be examined to determine whether the demand could have been met by adjustment of utilizable input credit. If credit was available, interest would not arise on the adjusted amount; if there was a shortfall, interest would be confined to the differential amount. The matter therefore required a limited remand for factual determination on this aspect.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the original authority for fresh determination.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the entitlement to credit failed, but the dispute on interest was sent back for limited reconsideration on the availability of utilizable input credit during the relevant period.

---