TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal denied: Welding electrodes not 'capital goods' for Cenvat credit; penalty upheld for inadmissible credit.</h1> <h3>RAMALA SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-I</h3> The appellant's appeal regarding the disallowance of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes was dismissed. The court upheld the decision that welding ... Cenvat/Modvat – Revenue alleged that appellant were wrongly availed cenvat credit on weilding electrodes and accordingly demand for reverse back of credit of duty – After considering all the fact authority find the allegation right and interest and penalty were recoverable Issues:1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes.2. Imposition of penalty and interest.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses, availed Cenvat credit on welding electrodes which the Revenue contended did not qualify as 'capital goods.' Despite being asked to reverse the credit, the appellant did not respond. The adjudicating authority found that welding electrodes used for maintenance of machinery were not eligible for Modvat credit based on previous tribunal decisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, citing precedents like Jaypee Rewa Plant case and J.K. Cement Works v. CCE, Jaipur. It was concluded that welding electrodes were not eligible for credit either as inputs or capital goods.2. On the issue of penalty, the appellant argued that there was a conflict in judicial pronouncements, indicating no intention to evade duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant knowingly availed inadmissible credit to evade duty, as evidenced by their failure to reverse the credit when instructed. The authorities maintained that the penalty and interest were rightly imposed, citing clear provisions of the law and past tribunal decisions. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the penalty and interest orders.This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to Cenvat credit rules and the consequences of availing inadmissible credits. It underscores the significance of past tribunal decisions in determining the eligibility of credits and the implications of non-compliance with directives from authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
