2015 (10) TMI 845 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - whether the welding electrodes used in the maintenance of machine etc., the CENVAT Credit on the same is allowable or not? - Held that - following the ration of the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2015 (10) TMI 621 - CESTAT MUMBAI), the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used in maintenance of machinery.
2. Interpretation of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the definition of "input."

Issue 1: Allowability of CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used in maintenance of machinery:

The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal, where the appellant sought CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used in maintenance. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) disallowed the credit based on previous rulings. The appellant argued that the definition of "input" under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules includes goods used indirectly in the manufacturing process. The appellant cited a ruling by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court that overturned a previous decision, emphasizing that items assisting in the manufacturing process qualify as inputs. The appellant also referred to a case where the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court allowed CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes for maintenance. The Hon'ble High Court reasoned that without machinery in working condition, manufacturing cannot occur, thus indirectly linking maintenance to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the definition of "input":

The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "input" under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing that goods used indirectly in the manufacturing process qualify as inputs. The Tribunal highlighted that machinery is essential for manufacturing, and maintenance activities indirectly contribute to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal disagreed with a ruling by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that items assisting in the manufacturing process should be considered inputs. The Tribunal relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which supported the inclusion of maintenance activities as part of the manufacturing process. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the earlier decision of Ultratech Cement Ltd.

This detailed analysis of the judgment thoroughly covers the issues involved and provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and interpretations made by the Tribunal.