Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.SVS/202/NGP-C/2007 dated 07/06/2007 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original disallowing the Cenvat Credit of Rs.5,66,945/-.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter Heading No.2502.29 and 2502.10 of CETA, 1985. They also availed Cenvat credit on welding electrodes, welding wire and sweat on paste etc., claiming the same as input under the provisions of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They were using this goods for cutting, welding, maintenance of structural items of iron and steel and repair and maintenance of plant and machinery which is not a process integrally connected with ultimate production of final product. The department initiated proceedings against the appellants since the Cenvat Credit as per the provisions of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was admissible only on inputs, which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The lower adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit so availed. They filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order who upheld the order-in-original of the lower adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the appeal.

6. I have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. Both sides agreed that there is no stay against the respective appeals filed by them in the High Court. Undisputedly, the appellants have used the welding electrodes, welding wires and sweat on paste in cutting/welding of their iron and steel structural, repairing and maintenance of their plants and machineries. I find that from beginning till the date of filing of appeal before this tribunal, the appellant have claimed welding electrodes, welding wire and sweat on paste etc., as inputs. Now the appellant had claimed their goods as capital goods, under (a) (iii) components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii), of the definition of Capital Goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants have heavily relied upon by the Honble High Court of Rajasthans decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Vs. UOI (2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj). Whether welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for cenvat credit both as capital goods as well as inputs was the question before the Honble High Court. The Honble High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee.