M/S. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd vs C.C.E. Meerut-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/1744/2008-E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal held that cenvat credit on welding electrodes used for fabrication, repair and maintenance of capital goods installed in the factory is admissible, where the same question has been decided in favour of the same assessee by an earlier Tribunal order that the Revenue did not appeal and that has therefore attained finality, and where that earlier order itself followed the reasoning of the High Courts of Chhattisgarh and Karnataka. Where a binding or final earlier decision of the Tribunal, unchallenged by the Revenue, has resolved the same issue between the same parties, the Tribunal will follow it and the Revenue cannot question its maintainability in subsequent proceedings on the same point.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 113-CE/MRT-I/2008 dated: 30.05.2008 passed by CCE (Appeals) Meerut-I]
Excise Appeal No. E/ 2058/2008-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 127-CE/MRT-I/2008 dated: 30.06.2008 passed by CCE (Appeals) Meerut-I]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. P K Mittal (Advocate) for the Respondent
Mr. G R Singh, DR for the Appellants
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing. 09.07.2015
Final Order No. 54148-54149 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
The issue involved in both these appeals are identical, as to whether, cenvat credit on electrodes used by the appellant for fabrication of the capital goods, which are parts of the sugar mill machinery installed in the factory, should qualify as Capital goods as defined in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
2. The Ld. Advocate Sh. P K Mittal, appearing for the appellant submits that the issue arising out of the present appeal is no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself, wherein the Tribunal vide final order No. 201-202/2011-SM-Br. Dated 3.3.2011 has allowed the cenvat credit on electrodes by relying on the judgment of Honble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chattisgarh) and Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.). He further submits that the said order of the Tribunal has not been appealed against by the Revenue before the higher authorities and as such, the same has attained finality and the principles decided therein are squarely applicable for the present case.
3. Per contra, the Ld. DR Sh. GR Singh appearing for the Revenue-Respondent while reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order, has relied on the judgment of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Lloyd Metals and Engineers Ltd. vs UOI reported in 2010 (252) ELT 355 (Bomb) and Sree Ryala Seema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. vs CCE-Tirupati 2012 (217) ELT 167 (A.P).
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. I find that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself vide order dated 3.3.2011, wherein it has been specifically held that the respondent is entitled for cenvat credit availed on electrodes, which are used for fabrication, repair and maintenance of their capital goods. Since the said decision has not been appealed against by the Revenue, the maintainability of the same cannot be questioned at this juncture by the Revenue. I also find that by relying on the judgment of Honble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. (supra) and the Honble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Alfred Herbert (India) (supra), this Bench of the Tribunal had allowed the cenvat benefit in favour of the appellant. Further, I find that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant (Barkhera Unit) vide final order dated 25.02.2013 has allowed the cenvat credit to the appellant on the welding electrodes. With regard to the Bilai Unit of the appellant, this Tribunal vide final order dated 26.02.2013 has also allowed the cenvat credit on welding electrodes, holding that the same are to be considered as input for manufacture/ fabrication of the plant and machineries installed within the factory.
6. In view of the settled position of law decided in favour of the appellant, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders denying the cenvat benefit on the disputed goods i.e. welding electrodes is not proper and justified. Therefore, the same are set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free