9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1849 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - welding electrodes - HELD THAT - The issue is no more resintegra in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon ble High Courts. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that applying the User Test to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues:
1. Irregular availment of cenvat credit on welding electrodes as inputs. 2. Qualification of welding electrodes as capital goods or inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. Adjudication of show cause notices disallowing credit and imposing penalties. 4. Appeal filed by the assessee before the Lower Appellate Authority. 5. Decision of the Tribunal regarding entitlement of cenvat credit on welding electrodes. 6. Applicability of judicial pronouncements on the issue. 7. Review of the impugned order by the Tribunal. 8. Affirmation of the decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh. Analysis: 1. The case involved allegations of irregular availment of cenvat credit on welding electrodes used in various processes by the respondent assessee. The Revenue contended that the welding electrodes did not qualify as capital goods or inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. The adjudicating authority issued seven show cause notices and disallowed the credit, ordering recovery with interest and imposing penalties. The Lower Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that cenvat credit on welding electrodes was available to them. 3. The Tribunal reviewed the case and found that the issue was not new, citing various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Singhal Enterprise and the applicability of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and structural items used in supporting capital goods. 4. The Tribunal considered judicial pronouncements supporting the allowance of cenvat credit on welding electrodes, including decisions from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and previous Tribunal rulings. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled through consistent decisions in favor of allowing such credits. 5. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that there was no reason to interfere with it based on the discussions and precedents cited. The decision was sustained, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. 6. The Tribunal also mentioned the affirmation of the decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh, further solidifying the position that cenvat credit on welding electrodes should be considered as allowable within the definition of "Inputs" under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Overall, the judgment clarified the entitlement of cenvat credit on welding electrodes, emphasizing the consistency of decisions in allowing such credits based on legal interpretations and precedents set by higher courts and tribunals.
|
