Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Prabhulingeswar Sugars & Chemicals Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 445-2009 dated 04/11/2009 passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BELGAUM NULL NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

PRABHULINGESWAR SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD Siddapur, Taluk jamkhandi, Bagalkot Dist. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 20/02/2015

Date of Decision: 20/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20416 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he has allowed the benefit of CENVAT credit to the respondents.

2. The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the CENVAT credit is available on the welding electrodes used in the maintenance and repair of the machinery. I find issue is no more res integra and stand settled by various decisions of the High Court, as detailed below:

a. Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh)

b. Hindustan Zinc vs. Union of India 2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj.)

c. CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd.

2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.)

3. Reference is made to the latest decision in the case of Nangganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow vide order dated 435/2011-SM dt.14.7.11 wherein identical submissions made by both sides and the Tribunal observed as under:-

Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the judgement of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE, Indore reported in [2009 (242) ELT 545 (Tri-Del)] and judgement of Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I reported in [2010 (260) ELT 321 (SC)].

I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that orders of the adjudicating authority as well as from the submissions of the learned counsel that the issue involved in this case and the disputed fact is whether duty paid on welding electrodes are used in the factory of appellant for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is eligible for Cenvat credit. I find that judgements cited by the learned Counsel of Honble High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Karnataka are directly on the point, wherein it is held that Cenvat credit can be availed on welding electrodes which are used for maintenance of plant and machinery. These judgements are binding on me.

As regards the decision of the Division Bench cited by the learned DR in the case of Vikram Cement, since judgements of the High Court are of higher judicial fera, hence have more binding force. As regards the Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills (supra), I find that this matter is referred to the Larger Bench of the Honble Supreme Court , this would indicate that at this juncture the judgement of the Honble High Court as referred to hereinabove are binding on me and respectfully following the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside.

3. By following the ratio of above decisions, I reject Revenues appeal.

(Operative portion of this order pronounced in court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja..

3