Cenvat credit reversal and valuation rules: fuel exclusion and wrong valuation basis made the demand unsustainable.

Fuel expressly excluded from the Cenvat credit reversal restriction under Rule 6 meant furnace oil used as fuel could not trigger reversal under Rule 6(3)(b). For sulphuric acid, separate accounts were maintained and no credit was taken on the quantity used for exempted pulp, so the statutory conditions for reversal were not met. The valuation basis for the 8% demand was also incorrect because the computation was made under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, whereas the facts required application of Rule 8. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 required reversal of credit in respect of furnace oil used as fuel and sulphuric acid for exempted pulp, and (ii) whether the demand for 8% of the value of exempted goods could be computed under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 instead of Rule 8.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 required reversal of credit in respect of furnace oil used as fuel and sulphuric acid for exempted pulp.

Analysis: Rule 6(2) required separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, but fuel was specifically excluded from the restriction. Furnace oil used as fuel therefore did not attract the reversal mechanism under Rule 6(3)(b). As regards sulphuric acid, separate accounts had been maintained and credit had not been taken on the quantity used for exempted pulp, so no question of reversal arose. On these facts, the statutory conditions for invoking Rule 6(3)(b) were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The demand under Rule 6(3)(b) was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for 8% of the value of exempted goods could be computed under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 instead of Rule 8.

Analysis: The valuation adopted by the Commissioner proceeded on Rule 9, but the relevant basis for valuation in the facts of the case was Rule 8. The rule governing the 8% amount under Rule 6(3)(b) did not depend on the distinction between sales to related persons and sales to independent buyers in the manner applied in the impugned order. The valuation foundation of the demand was therefore incorrect.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted for computing the demand could not be upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order confirming demand and penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where fuel is expressly outside the reversal restriction and separate accounts show no credit was taken on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods, Rule 6(3)(b) cannot be invoked; a demand founded on an incorrect valuation rule also cannot stand.

---