TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant Sri S. Mukhopadhya, Supdt. (A.R.) For the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary The appellant requested for adjournment. As the issue involved is in a narrow compass, I find the appeal may be decided on merits. 2. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and MS ingots classifiable under Chapter 72 to CETA, 1985 and availing CENVAT Credit on capital goods and inputs. In the present case, the dispute relates to the eligibility of the Cenvat Credit on welding electrodes used for repaid and maintenance of their capital goods like conveyor systems, SMS crane, structural electrical etc. use of the final product in their facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the appellant is eligible for Cenvat Credit on the impugned goods. As the demand is not sustainable, issues of interest or imposition of penalty do not arise. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority that he has followed the judicial discipline by following order of this Tribunal in respect of the identical issues that also in respect of same assessee. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in such an order which is following the final order of Tribunal. The appeal is rejected. In the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2017 (4) TMI 744-CESTAT-New Delhi] , the Tribunal held as under: iv) Welding electrodes under Chapter 8311 (Issue No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormed part of the capital goods and both the lower authorities have not disputed the detailed submissions made by appellant. I fin that the Division Bench of the Tribunal while considering identical issue in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.-2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-DEL, has held in paragraph 12 as under:- 12. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad cited by the Revenue. We find that the Hon ble High Court has considered the claim of Welding Electrodes under the definition of capital gods under Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and have come to the conclusion that the credit will not be allowable under this Rule. However, we find that the credit of duty paid on Welding Electrodes has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used only for installation of capital goods and were not used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is also not supported by any evidence. In the absence of any concrete evidence to indicate that CENVAT credit was availed for repair and maintenance of capital goods, I find the impugned order is unsustainable. 4.2 As regards the decision relied on by the learned D.R. in the case of SreeRayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd.-2012 (278) ELT 167 (A.P., I find that the said decision has categorically held that, unless the welding electrodes used in the manufacture of capital goods, which are thereafter used in the factory do not qualify as inputs. CENVAT credit cannot be claimed. As already recorded by me, the claim of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
