Proportionate CENVAT credit reversal cannot be denied merely for missing workings when the reversed amount is otherwise undisputed.

A demand for reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit could not be sustained merely because the assessee did not produce the workings for the amount reversed. The department did not dispute that the actual reversal was correct or allege that any further amount was payable. In the absence of a specific allegation of non-compliance with the procedural intimation requirement under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the demand failed because there was no proof that the reversal made was wrong.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for reversal of proportionate credit could be sustained merely because the assessee did not furnish the workings for arriving at the amount reversed, when the department did not dispute the correctness of the amount actually reversed.

Analysis: The dispute was limited to the manner in which the reversed amount was computed. The department did not allege that any further amount was required to be reversed or that the amount reversed was incorrect. In the absence of a specific allegation that the assessee had failed to comply with the procedural intimation requirement under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, a demand cannot be sustained only on the ground that the workings were not produced. The demand could not be justified without proof that the reversal made was wrong.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---