2010 (12) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit Whether allowed or not - The appellants submits that welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance ought to have been held as inputs and the same are eligible for Cenvat credit in the light of the judgement of the Honrable High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported as 2010 (256) TMI 77888 Held that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the credit on these items are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief as per law Demand - As regards the denial of credit on other items, it appears from the records that these items have been used for structures and therefore, they are not eligible for credit Thus the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) demanding duty by denying the credit on plates, shapes and sections are upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit on welding electrodes and other items.
2. Interpretation of eligibility for credit on structures.
3. Imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of credit on welding electrodes and other items
- The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the denial of credit on welding electrodes and other items, along with the imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance should be considered as inputs eligible for Cenvat credit. The advocate cited judgments from the High Courts of Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan to support the eligibility of the items for credit.
- The SDR reiterated the Commissioner's findings and mentioned a Tribunal decision regarding welding electrodes. However, the Tribunal's decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. Regarding plates, shapes, and sections, the SDR argued that based on usage records, they were not eligible for credit as inputs or capital goods.
- The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and records. Following the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing credit on welding electrodes. However, for other items used in structures, the credit was denied.

Issue 2: Interpretation of eligibility for credit on structures
- The Tribunal noted that there were different interpretations regarding the eligibility of structures for credit. Consequently, there was no justification for imposing penalties.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty
- The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by allowing Appeal No. 1134/2009 and setting aside the Commissioner's order. In Appeal No. 1133/2009, the order regarding duty and interest on welding electrodes was set aside, along with the penalties. However, the denial of credit on plates, shapes, and sections was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellants by allowing credit on welding electrodes but denied credit on other items used in structures. The imposition of penalties was deemed unjustified due to differing interpretations of eligibility for credit on structures.