2009 (11) TMI 313 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit- The contention of the Revenue included in the Show-cause-Notices that the electrodes were used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods has not been explained, denied etc. Assessee has no case that a large volume for which the portion of Cenvat Credit was claimed was actual input and remaining stock was used for repair and maintenance. Held that- In absence of any such explanation, credit not available on welding electrodes. stay of order- order dismissing the appeal is not of executable nature and hence request for stay is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order disallowing Cenvat credit for welding electrodes.

Analysis:
The appellant contested a decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal disallowing Cenvat credit related to welding electrodes. The show-cause notices highlighted the issue, stating that the electrodes were used for repairing/maintenance of capital goods, affecting the Cenvat credit claimed. The appellant's response argued that the electrodes were used in manufacturing final products, falling under the Cenvat scheme's definition of inputs. However, the appellant failed to address the Revenue's contention that the electrodes were used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods. The absence of a clear explanation regarding the volume of electrodes purchased and their specific usage led the court to find no grounds for challenging the tribunal's order.

The court examined various judgments cited by the appellant but found them irrelevant to the present case. The appellant relied on precedents like Bharat Petroleum Corporation v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha, Vikram Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, SAIL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Union of India & ors. However, the court concluded that these precedents did not support the appellant's case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant requested a stay of the dismissal order, which was rejected by the court on the grounds that the order was not of an executable nature. Ultimately, the appeal challenging the disallowance of Cenvat credit for welding electrodes was dismissed by the court.