9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing electrodes. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent seeking to deny the Cenvat credit so availed on the ground that the said goods on which credit was availed are not capital goods and no item manufactured out of them was movable and as such they are not eligible for availing Cenvat credit. Respondent contested the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority who after considering the submissions made by them confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by said aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the respondent vide his order dated 30-4-04. The respondent preferred an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion items are used by the respondent for manufacturing of capital goods which are further used by them in the manufacture of final product. It is his submission that the revenue has not adduced any evidence contrary to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the provisions of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are very clear and draws my attention to the explanation 2 of the said Rule. He also relies upon a series of the tribunal's decisions. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is undisputed that the items beams, angles, channel, plates flat plates etc. were received by the respondent and used by them in the manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to the extent it holds the eligibility of availment of credit on the said inputs is correct and does not require any interference. 6. As regards the Cenvat credit availed by the respondent on the welding electrodes, I find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the two decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Reva [2003 (159) E.L.T. 553 (Tri.-LB)] and Triveni Engg. and Industries Ltd. [2005 (186) E.L.T. 158 (Tri.-LB)] The Larger Bench has held the welding electrodes cannot be considered as inputs or as a capital goods. As such the credit availed by the respondent on the welding electrodes is liable to be disallowed. Impugned order, to the extent it allows the credit on the welding el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
