2009 (10) TMI 817 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Applicability of law laid down by the Apex Court in Kunhayammed case.
2. Interpretation of merger of orders by the Tribunal.
3. Claim of goods as inputs based on Union Carbide case.
4. Denial of Cenvat credit on various goods.
5. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on machineries and repair works.
6. Denial of Cenvat credit on steel structures and spares.
7. Prima facie consideration of the matter.
8. Analysis of Union Carbide case for rejecting contentions.
9. Justification for denial of stay application.
10. Waiver of deposit requirement for interest and penalty amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Advocate argued that the Tribunal did not apply the law from the Kunhayammed case while deciding the matter in Vikram Cement case. The contention was that Cenvat credit was wrongly denied despite the utilization of inputs indirectly in the manufacturing process of the final product.

2. The Advocate highlighted that the Tribunal incorrectly held the order in SAIL matter amounted to a merger with the order of the Apex Court. The argument was that the mere disposal of SLP does not constitute a merger, and the Tribunal should not have considered it as such in the Vikram Cement case.

3. The Advocate strongly asserted that the Union Carbide case supported the claim that the goods in question were indeed inputs utilized in the manufacturing process of the final products.

4. The attention was drawn to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., emphasizing the dismissal of the SLP against the said order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The Commissioner denied Cenvat credit on machineries and goods used for repair and maintenance activities in the existing plant, leading to the denial of credit on steel structures and spares as well.

6. The Tribunal found that the denial of Cenvat credit on machineries and goods used for repair and maintenance was justified, as these items were not considered as inputs eligible for Cenvat credit.

7. The written submissions included contentions regarding the denial of Cenvat credit on various goods used for maintenance and repair activities, challenging the Commissioner's decision.

8. The Tribunal analyzed the Union Carbide case in detail to reject the contentions raised by the Advocate, emphasizing the need for goods to be related to the manufacturing process to qualify for Cenvat credit.

9. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for granting a stay of the impugned order, as all materials on record were considered, and no infirmity was pointed out in the findings of the authorities below.

10. Despite not granting a stay, the Tribunal waived the requirement of deposit for the interest and penalty amount, considering the right of appeal and the circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →