2017 (5) TMI 1134 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - various inputs - adhesive tape, welding electrodes, gum boots, concrete sleepers, fish plate, rail and rail crossing, high mast light/HMPV lamp, high pressure sodium vapour, flood , galvanised tower, GI flat, GI rod, lightening pole, ladder, tough tray, cabin fan etc. - Held that - the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit for the subject items - in appellant s own case M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Raipur 2016 (8) TMI 1110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the Cenvat credit facility benefit in case of welding electrodes also has been allowed - corresponding penalty imposed by the impugned order in this regard is also dropped - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat credit on various input goods by Commissioner, Central Excise.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s Steel Authority of India (SAIL), appealed against the Order-in-Original disallowing Cenvat credit of ?10,75,539 on input goods like adhesive tape, welding electrodes, gum boots, concrete sleepers, and more. Both sides, represented by Shri Dhruv Tiwari and Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, were heard. After reviewing the facts and case laws presented, it was found that the appellant was entitled to take Cenvat credit for the subject items. The appellant cited several case laws to support their claim, highlighting the eligibility of welding electrodes for credit based on Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's decision in similar cases further reinforced the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit.

The Revenue's counsel argued against allowing Cenvat credit for welding electrodes, but a previous decision in the appellant's favor was referenced, where the credit facility for welding electrodes was permitted. The decision emphasized that welding electrodes qualified as inputs under Rule 2(k) and were used in the manufacturing process. The eligibility of welding electrodes for Cenvat credit had been established in various decisions, including Tribunal rulings and High Court precedents. Considering the case laws presented by the appellant and the Tribunal's observations, it was concluded that the appellant was indeed entitled to Cenvat credit for the disputed items. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the impugned order was dropped, and the appeal was allowed, providing any consequential relief to the appellant as necessary.