Cce, Ghaziabad vs M/S.Uttam Indl.Engg. Ltd

(Arising out of OIA No.GZB-EXCUS-000-APP-048-14-15 dt.9.9.14 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Ghaziabad)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 29.04.2015

For Approval &signature:

Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

CCE, Ghaziabad Appellant

Vs.

M/s.Uttam Indl.Engg. Ltd. Respondent

Present for the Appellant: Shri R.K.Mishra, AR

Present for the Respondent: Shri Rakshit Verma, Advocate

Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO.51492/2015

PER: ASHOK JINDAL

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed cenvat credit on welding electrodes which have been used by the respondent as inputs in their manufacturing activity.

2. Today the stay application as well as appeal are listed for disposal. After hearing both sides, I find that the appeal can be decided at this stage. Therefore, both stay application as well as appeal are taken up together for final disposal.

3. The facts of the case are the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of sugar machinery and sugar machinery parts and welding electrodes have been used by them for manufacture of parts of the machinery. Therefore these welding electrodes are integral part of their manufacturing activity. A show cause notice was issued to respondent to deny the cenvat credit on the premise that the welding electrodes are consumables and they are not inputs or capital goods for the respondent. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for denying cenvat credit but the Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the details of the case held that the respondent are entitled for cenvat credit on welding electrodes. Accordingly cenvat credit was allowed to the respondent. Against that order, the Revenue is before me.

4. Learned AR relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs .CCE-2008 (229) ELT A127 (SC) and Prism Cement Ltd. vs. CCE-2009 (237) ELT A99 (SC) to say that the respondent are not entitled to avail cenvat credit on welding electrodes for their usage for repair and maintenance of their sugar machinery.

5. After hearing the ld.AR, I find that the Revenue is not understood the factual matrix in the case and merely sought to deny cenvat credit on the welding electrodes. In this case, the respondent is manufacturer of sugar machinery and without using welding electrodes, the machinery cannot be fabricated. Therefore, welding electrodes are integral part of the manufacturing activity of the respondent. In the circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the cenvat credit on the welding electrodes to the respondent. Further the case law relied upon by the learned AR has no relevance to the facts of this case. In that case, the goods were used for repair and maintenance of the machinery by sugar manufacturer or steel industries. But in the present case, the respondent himself is manufacturer of sugar machinery. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal as well as stay application filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)

(ASHOK JINDAL)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

mk

4 4