Cenvat credit reversal and sales-return credit turn on proportionate compliance and proper correlation of returned goods.

Proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to exempted clearances was treated as sufficiently reversed where common inputs were used and separate accounts were not maintained; the design and development charges were not added for applying the 8% amount under Rule 6(3)(b), and the assessee's compliance was accepted. Cenvat credit on sales returns was also upheld where the returned pumps were duly correlated with prior duty-paid clearances under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The impugned order was therefore found unsustainable on both issues and set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cost of design and development charges incurred for manufacture of the pumps was required to be added to the price of the pumps for payment of an amount equal to 8% of the price under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (ii) Whether the Cenvat credit availed in respect of sales returns on the basis of documents under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was correct.

Issue (i): Whether the cost of design and development charges incurred for manufacture of the pumps was required to be added to the price of the pumps for payment of an amount equal to 8% of the price under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The goods supplied to the defence establishment were manufactured using common inputs on which Cenvat credit had been taken, and separate accounts were not maintained for inputs used in dutiable and exempted clearances. The amount already reversed on clearance of the exempted goods was more than the proportionate credit attributable to those goods, and the retrospective amendment governing reversal of credit on inputs used in exempted goods supported that compliance. The design and development charges, on the facts found, did not warrant the adverse valuation adopted by the lower authorities for this purpose.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the reversal already made was held sufficient compliance.

Issue (ii): Whether the Cenvat credit availed in respect of sales returns on the basis of documents under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was correct.

Analysis: The appellant had produced documents correlating the returned pumps with the relevant clearances, and the lower authorities had rejected the credit only on the ground of lack of correlation. On the record, the correlation was found to be established and the credit on the returned goods was held to be properly availed under the applicable rule.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the Cenvat credit on sales returns was upheld as correctly availed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was found unsustainable and was set aside, with the assessee succeeding on both substantive issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to exempted clearances has been reversed to a sufficient extent, and returned goods are duly correlated with prior duty-paid clearances, the demand cannot be sustained.

---