2018 (4) TMI 1313 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - welding electrodes - Held that - Since there is no dispute as to the fact that the welding electrodes were received and used in the factory premise during the relevant period in question for maintenance and the issue having been settled by the Apex court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd 2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that for the proposition that the definition of input during the relevant period has been interpreted to state word include is generally used to enlarge the definition, credit is allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT credit on central excise duty paid on welding electrodes for maintenance of Plant and Machinery.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad concerned the availment of CENVAT credit on central excise duty paid on welding electrodes between January 2008 to March 2011. The Revenue contended that the CENVAT credit availed was incorrect as the welding electrodes were used for maintenance purposes. The appellant argued that maintenance of Plant and Machinery is essential for their functionality, citing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkarai Chini Mills Ltd Vs CCE Meerut. The appellant relied on previous decisions, including a case before the same Bench and a Division Bench judgment, which favored the assessee on similar grounds.

The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute that the welding electrodes were received and used for maintenance within the factory premises during the relevant period. Referring to the Apex Court's decision in the Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd case, the Tribunal found that the definition of input during the relevant period was interpreted broadly. The Tribunal highlighted that a similar issue had been settled in favor of the assessee in previous judgments, and the reliance placed by the departmental representative on a different case may not support the Revenue's position.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court by Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) of the Tribunal.