9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JJ. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. In this appeal of the Revenue, the short question arising for consideration is whether the lower appellate authority was right in granting the benefit of Cenvat Credit on certain materials, which, according to the appellant, do not qualify to be inputs within the meaning of this expression defined under Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, for the month of March, 2002. The Original Authority had disallowed the above credit amounting to Rs. 22,94,251/- to the respondent. The appellate authority allowed the credit to the party after holding that the said materials fell within the scop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of input, that the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be extended to any commodity which is not shown to have been used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product within the factory. It is submitted that the workshops in which Acetylene Gas etc. were used for the repairs/maintenance of the machinery were not a part of the factory and, therefore, such items would not qualify to be inputs under Rule 2(g). In this connection, ld. Counsel submits that this is a new case sought to be framed by the Revenue inasmuch as the show-cause notice did not deny Cenvat Credit on the ground that the workshops were outside the factory premises. Ld. SDR further submits that second explanation to Rule 2(g) makes it abundantl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held to be admissible to welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery. A decision cited by the ld. SDR is DSM Sugar v. CCE, Meerut-II [2007 (220) E.L.T. 71 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein the ld. President of the Tribunal sitting singly held that structurals of general nature used for day-to-day repairing/maintenance of machinery could not be considered as capital goods for the purpose of modvat/cenvat credit. Both sides have also extensively referred to the definition of input. 3. After considering the submissions, we find that the whole challenge of the Revenue is against grant of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 22,94,251/- to the respondent. The Original Authority disallowed this benefit to the assessee on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery which was used for the manufacture of final product. Even the respondent did not have such a case. They only submitted that they had availed Cenvat Credit on materials which were used in their workshop for repairs and maintenance of capital goods which were, in turn, used for the manufacture of final product. They never claimed that they manufactured any intermediate capital goods in their workshop, which were, in turn, used for the manufacture of final product. Therefore, in our view, gross non-application of mind is writ large on the impugned order in so far as the question whether Cenvat Credit could be denied on the ground of availment of exemption under Notification No. 65/95-C.E. is concerned. If that be so, we do not think th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
