9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it in question in RG 23C Part II, 50% thereof in one financial year and the rest in a subsequent year. At no stage before did they make any alternative claim - The steel items in question are claimed to have been used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods by way of replacement of old/worn out parts/components of such capital goods. This factual plea is to be seen throughout the records - If findings of Revenue is presumed to be correct for a moment, then there is a prima facie case for holding that the steel items were used in the manufacture of capital goods and, hence, by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation to the definition given under Rule 2(k), such steel items could be considered as “inputs”. In this prima facie view of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits, they have an alternative contention also at this stage which is to the effect that the aforesaid steel items would also qualify as inputs for the purpose of Cenvat credit. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the second Explanation to the definition of input under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which states thus :- Input include goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer . It is submitted that, as the aforesaid steel items were used for replacing worn out parts of existing capital goods, they are covered by the Explanation and, hence, Cenvat credit should be admissible to them under Rule 2(k). Per contra, the learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med to be correct for a moment, then there is a prima facie case for holding that the steel items were used in the manufacture of capital goods and, hence, by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation to the definition given under Rule 2(k), such steel items could be considered as inputs . In this prima facie view of the matter, we have found a good case for waiver and stay. The Hon ble High Court in the cited case held that manufacture of capital goods was different from repairs or maintenance of capital goods and that Cenvat credit could not be claimed under Rule 2(k) in respect of welding electrodes used for repairs. Welding electrodes used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods never become part of such capital goods. On the other hand, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
