2018 (7) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - welding electrodes - denial on the ground that the welding electrodes were not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and therefore, no credit is admissible as they do not qualify to be called as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Held that - It appears that the Government had been revising the CENVAT Rules from time to time expanding the scope of credit and also bringing about increasing harmony between the CENVAT Credit Rules and the erstwhile Service Tax Credit Rules and eventually merged them in 2004. The process of expansion of scope of CENVAT Credit continued even after 2004; simultaneously, the rates of Central Excise duties as well as Service Tax were also harmonised reducing the gaps between them and eventually, they have been merged into the Goods & Services Tax - In 2002 Rules, inputs used in or in relation to manufacture were allowed credit and this definition was further enlarged in 2004 Rules. In 2011, credit was allowed on all goods used in the factory by the manufacturers subject to some exceptions. It no longer mattered whether the inputs were used in or in relation to manufacture or not. The relevant period in the current cases is May, 2013 to May, 2015. Therefore, the definition of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as amended in 2011 is relevant for the purpose - In terms of the amended definition of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (after 2011) as is applicable to the relevant period, the welding electrodes can definitely be called inputs. The assessee is entitled to input credit on the welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of machinery in his factory - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal denying CENVAT credit on welding electrodes used in repairs and maintenance of machinery.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a cement manufacturer, availed CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used for machinery repairs. The department sought to deny credit, arguing welding electrodes did not qualify as inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellant cited legal precedents where CENVAT credit on welding electrodes was allowed. The appellant argued for credit based on these precedents and claimed entitlement to the benefit of doubt if credit was not allowed.

3. The Departmental Representative opposed, referencing a High Court judgment denying credit on welding electrodes. The issue was also addressed by the Supreme Court, which clarified the scope of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules.

4. The appellant countered the Departmental Representative's argument by highlighting a CESTAT judgment that considered the necessity of repairs and maintenance for manufacturing operations. The judgment allowed credit on welding electrodes.

5. Considering the arguments, the Member analyzed the evolution of CENVAT Rules and the expanded scope of credit over time. The revised definition of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as amended in 2011 was crucial for determining eligibility for credit.

6. The Member concluded that under the amended definition, welding electrodes used in machinery repairs qualified as inputs. The judgment denying credit based on a previous High Court ruling was deemed inapplicable due to the revised CENVAT Credit Rules.

7. Consequently, the Orders-in-Appeal denying CENVAT credit were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments, precedents cited, and the Member's reasoning for allowing the appeals based on the revised definition of inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.