Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalM/S. The India Cements Ltd vs The Addl. Commissioner Of C,Ce&St, ... on 25 October, 2016CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Bench  SMB
Court  I


Appeal No.E/471/2011

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.78/2010(T)CE dt. 07/10/2010 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals), Guntur)


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial)


1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?



2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?



3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?


M/s. The India Cements Ltd.
..Appellant(s)

Vs.
The Addl. Commissioner of C,CE&ST, Tirupati
..Respondent(s)Appearance
Shri T. Vinod, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.Coram:Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial)

Date of Hearing:25/10/2016 
                                    		    Date of decision:25/10/2016
 

FINAL ORDER No._______________________

[Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.]

 		The issue involved in the above appeal is whether the appellant is eligible for credit on the welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance.2.		On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Shri T. Vinod submitted that the period involved is from December 2004 to March 2009 and the Department has invoked the extended period to demand an amount of Rs.6,13,344/- of credit availed on duty paid on welding electrodes which were used in the repair and maintenance of capital goods.  Against this the learned AR Shri Nagraj Naik reiterated the findings in the impugned order.  He submitted that welding electrodes do not fall within the definition of capital goods and are not eligible for credit.3.		I have heard both sides.In the case ofCCE, Meerut Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.[2000(119) ELT 197 (Tri. LB)], the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view that when the credit is availed under the category of capital goods, the same cannot be denied if the appellant is eligible under the category of inputs.The same view was fortified in the decision rendered in Sanghvi Forgings & Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2014(302) ELT 136 (Tri. Ahmd.)].4.		This Tribunal, in the order passed in the case of Panyam Cements [Final order No.A/30872/2016 dt. 09/09/2016] has taken the view that credit availed on welding electrodes is admissible.  The Tribunal relied on the judgement passed by Apex Court in the case ofRamala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I[2016(334) ELT 3 (SC)].  In view thereof, following the above decisions, I hold that the appellant is eligible for credit.  The impugned order is set aside.  Appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.(Pronounced and dictated in open court)





SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.
MEMBER(JUDICIAL)


Raja.3