TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3181/2012, E/27293/2013, E/1542/2010, E/21499/2015, E/20002/2015 & E/20009/2015 - 20977-20984/2017 - Dated:- 27-6-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, Mrs. Rukmani Menon,Advocate, Mr. P. Sateeshan, Consultant And Mr. M. A. Narayana, For the Appellant Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR Shri N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg These appeals are directed against various impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has denied the CENVAT credit on welding electrodes used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture of final product and in certain cases the Commissioner (A) has rejected the CENVAT credit on manufacture of pig iron which are further used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case in appeal No. E/1381/2004 are taken. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement falling under Chapter 25. They have availed credit of ₹ 18,07,940/- on different types of inputs such as chemicals, steel items, lubricants, greases, nuts and bolts, electrodes and DA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Bs. UOI: 2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj.) National Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Bs. CCE: 2016 (344) ELT 832 (Mad.) M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprints Paper Ltd. Bs. CCE: 2017-TIOL-1093-HC-MAD. Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. Bs. CCE: 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chattisgarh) CCE, Trichy Vs. CESTAT, Chennai: 2014 (309) ELT 71 (Mad.) CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Madras Aluminium: 2008 (226) ELT 342 (Mad.) CCE Vs. Alfred Herbert (I) Ltd.: 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.) India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2006 (205) ELT 717 (Tri.-Bang.) Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2004 (177) ELT 374 (Tri.-Mum.) CCE, Salem Vs. Indian Cement Ltd.: 2006 (199) ELT 75 (Tri.-Chennai) 4.1 He further submitted that the issue of availability of CENVAT credit on welding electrodes utilised for the purpose of repair and maintenance is decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2010-TIOL-102-SC-CX wherein the apex court referred the matter to the Larger Bench. Further, the Larger Bench as reported in 2016-TIOL-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2 Whereas in Appeal No.E/20002-20009/2015, the issue involved was whether the welding steel rods and welding steel wires used by the appellant in the activity of refurbishing of the forging dyes are inputs and whether the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit on these items as per CCR, 2004 7. Further, I find that in the case of CCE Vs. Alfred Herbert (I) Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.) wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held that CENVAT credit in respect of goods which were used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is admissible. Further, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Vasavadatta Cement decided in Excise Appeal No.304/2008 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has framed a substantial question of law as to Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the CENVAT credit availed on the value of welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of equipments in the course of manufacture of product by the respondent is an input in the production of excisable goods and therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the value of welding electrodes. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , KANPUT [AIR 1965 SC 1310]) wherein it is held as under: The expression 'in the manufacture of goods' should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw material into finished goods. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be commercially inexpedient. goods required in that process would in our judgment, fall within the expression 'in the manufacture of goods..... Goods used as equipment, as tools, as stores, as spare parts, or as accessories in the manufacture or processing of goods, in mining, and in the generation and distribution of power need not, to qualify for special treatment under S.8 (1), be ingredients or commodities used in the processes, nor must they be directly and actually needed for turning out or the creation of goods . In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that in a factory manufacturing cotton, certain electrical equipments would be commercially necessary; for instance, without electrical lighting, it would be difficult to carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
