2016 (3) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amakrishna, AR for the Appellant Shri N.Anand, Advocate for the Respondent Order Per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. 1. The issue involved in the above appeals filed by Revenue being the same, they are disposed by this common order. 2. The appeals are filed challenging the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) by which the respondents were granted the benefit of CENVAT credit on inputs viz. Welding electrodes. The learned AR Shri V.Ramakrishna explained the facts of the case. Six show cause notices were issued for different periods alleging irregular availment of credit of duty paid on welding electrodes, MS items and paints used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. These notices were adjudicated by the Assistant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. That therefore credit on welding electrodes, MS items and paints used for repair and maintenance is not eligible for credit. 4. Against this, the learned counsel Shri V.Anand appearing for the respondent supported the findings in the impugned order. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment laid in CCE CUS, Visakhapatnam Vs Rashtriya Ispal Nigam Ltd. 2011(271) ELT 338(AP) and contended that credit on steel sheets and coal used for repair of capital goods was held to be admissible. He submitted that without periodical repair and maintenance, the process of manufacturing would not be commercially feasible. That this aspect was not considered in the case of Sree Rayalaseem Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd 2012 ELT(278) ELT 167(AP) relied b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the case of Maruthi Suzuki case requires a revisit. In the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd, the question was whether credit is admissible on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance. The Hon ble Larger Bench of Supreme court by the judgment dated 19-02-2016 held that the word include used in the definition of inputs does not restrict to the six items mentioned specifically in the definition. That the word include is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension and not with restriction. The Coordinate Bench of the tribunal in the case of Bhushal Steel Ltd Vs CCE, Ghaziabad 2015(323) ELT 618 (Tri-Del) following the judgment of Hon ble High Court in Singh Alloys Steel Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X