Credit reversal on common inputs can neutralise further percentage-based reversal demands for exempt clearances, with related-person valuation also rejected.

Reversal of credit on common inputs used for exempted or nil-rate clearances was treated as equivalent to non-availment of credit, so an additional percentage-based reversal demand was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that where the assessee had already reversed credit on a pro rata basis, the further demand could not survive. On the related-person valuation issue, the demand was rejected because the facts did not support the allegation of the requisite business interest, and the consequential penalty and interest also failed once the demand was set aside. The same reasoning was applied to the connected dispute involving pipeline supplies and impracticable separate inventory maintenance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reversal of credit on common inputs used in the manufacture of exempted or nil-rate goods negates the requirement of an 8% amount reversal; (ii) whether valuation based on the related-person theory and the consequential demand of 8% amount could be sustained, along with penalty and interest.

Issue (i): whether reversal of credit on common inputs used in the manufacture of exempted or nil-rate goods negates the requirement of an 8% amount reversal.

Analysis: The assessee had already reversed credit on the relevant inputs on a pro rata basis, and the Tribunal treated such reversal as placing the matter on the footing that no credit had effectively been taken on those inputs. The reasoning adopted was that where credit is reversed, the consequence is equivalent to non-availment of credit, and the demand for a further percentage-based reversal does not survive. Reliance was placed on the principle that reversal of credit neutralises the earlier availment, and on earlier Tribunal decisions applying that principle to similar exemption situations.

Conclusion: The demand for 8% reversal was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether valuation based on the related-person theory and the consequential demand of 8% amount could be sustained, along with penalty and interest.

Analysis: In the second appeal, the inputs were supplied through pipelines and separate inventory maintenance was treated as impracticable, while the assessee had already effected reversals on a pro rata basis. On those facts, the Tribunal held that the same principle applied and the percentage-based demand could not be upheld. The related-person allegation was also rejected for want of supporting material showing the requisite interest in the assessee's business. Once the demand itself failed, the penalty and interest founded on that demand also could not survive, and the finding of suppression was not accepted.

Conclusion: The valuation basis, the demand, the penalty and the interest were all set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals succeeded, and the impugned orders were set aside in entirety, leaving no surviving demand or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Reversal of credit on common inputs, where accepted and effected, is treated as equivalent to non-availment of credit and prevents an additional percentage-based reversal demand on exempt or nil-rate clearances; consequential penalty and valuation adjustments cannot stand without an independent sustainable basis.

---