CENVAT credit utilisation dispute led to remand for fresh findings on interest and penalty liability.

CENVAT credit-based interest and penalty depend on whether wrongly taken credit was also utilised. Here, the record did not contain a clear factual finding on utilisation, and the assessee maintained that the credit had only been availed, remained unutilised, and was reversed before the show cause notice. Because the legal consequence under the CENVAT Credit Rules turns on that factual distinction, the demand for interest and penalty could not be conclusively sustained without verification. The matter was remitted for fresh decision after determining whether the credit was merely taken or also utilised.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest and penalty could be sustained where CENVAT credit was allegedly taken wrongly but not utilised, and the factual position regarding utilisation required verification.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the impugned credit was only availed or was also utilised. The governing scheme under the CENVAT Credit Rules treats recovery and interest as linked to credit taken and utilised wrongly, and the Tribunal noted that the appellate record and the original order did not record a clear finding on utilisation. The assessee consistently maintained that the credit remained unutilised and had been reversed before receipt of the show cause notice. In these circumstances, the correctness of the demand for interest and the penalty could not be finally affirmed without a clear factual determination.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty were not finally upheld; the matter was remitted for fresh decision after determining whether the credit had only been taken or had also been utilised. The assessee succeeded to the extent of obtaining remand.

---