TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JHARKHAND [ 2008 (7) TMI 16 - SC ORDER] took a view in favour of the assessee considering the decision of three High Courts wherein it has been held that credit is eligible on welding electrodes. It has also been observed therein that mere dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court against the decision rendered by the Tribunal will not be considered to be law since not decided by the Apex Court. Since the issue is no longer res integra and the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on welding electrode has been squarely decided in favour of the assesse even for the period prior to 1st March, 2011, there is no reason to disallow credit in the present case. The demand of excise duty, interest and penalty is thus set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit, as proposed in the notices. In the first appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while taking note of the amendment made in the definition of input w.e.f. 01.03.2011 under Rule 2(k) of the Credit Rules, allowed credit for the period post March 2011 whereas, disallowed credit for the period April 2010 to February 2011. It is the contention of the Ld. Commissioner that definition was amended from the aforesaid date to enlarge the scope of term input and therefore, the appellant is eligible to avail credit on welding electrode only during the period covered post amendment. For the period prior to the said amendment, the Commissioner observed that repair and maintenance activities cannot be said to be in relation to manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom both the sides and perused the records. 7. On the issue of eligibility of welding electrodes for Cenvat credit, there are judgments of three High Courts - judgments of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court, Hon ble Karnataka High Court and Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the cases mentioned above. The Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. (supra) has also discussed the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) taking a contrary view and has held that dismissal by the Apex Court of SAIL s SLP against Tribunal s judgment, being dismissal without giving any reasons, does not laid down any law. Though Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of SreeRayalaseema Hi-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
