2006 (1) TMI 479 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed in credit denial for welding electrodes in cement manufacturing

The appeal challenging the denial of credit for duty paid on electrodes for cement manufacturing was dismissed. The presiding authority upheld that ... Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Cenvat/Modvat Issues:Credit eligibility of duty paid on electrodes for manufacturing cement.Analysis:The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal that denied credit of duty paid on electrodes for the appellants, who are cement manufacturers. The department contended that welding electrodes are not eligible as inputs, leading to the reversal of the credit. The matter was adjudicated, resulting in confirmation of the demand and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order.The appellants argued that welding electrodes are integral to the manufacturing process as they are used for repairing and rebuilding worn-out parts in machinery. They emphasized the necessity of welding electrodes for maintaining machinery efficiency in cement production. Reference was made to the decision of the Larger Bench in a similar case, highlighting the importance of machinery repair during production demands.The Departmental Representative countered that the Larger Bench had considered arguments similar to those presented by the appellants and cited a relevant case supporting their stance. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was acknowledged that welding electrodes were indeed used for machinery repair in the cement factory. However, despite the necessity for maintenance, the use of welding electrodes did not qualify as input for Cenvat credit as per the Larger Bench decision in a specific case.The presiding authority noted that the decision of the Larger Bench directly addressed the issue of welding electrodes not being considered as inputs, rendering other cited cases irrelevant. The authority disagreed with a previous decision that deemed welding electrodes eligible as capital goods, emphasizing the precedence of the Larger Bench ruling. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the penalty imposed on the appellants was deemed unwarranted due to the ongoing challenge regarding the credit eligibility of welding electrodes. Thus, the penalty was set aside, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.