Cenvat credit on fabrication inputs allowed in factory, while welding electrodes remain ineligible under settled precedent.

Credit on welding electrodes is not admissible as either capital goods or inputs, and the denial of credit on that item is upheld in line with existing Tribunal and Larger Bench rulings. By contrast, shapes, sections, MS bars, HR coils and steel plates used as raw material to fabricate capital goods within the factory cannot be denied credit merely because they are incorporated into such capital goods, where Rule 57D permits credit on inputs used in their manufacture and the capital goods are used in the factory. The article therefore states that credit is denied on welding electrodes but available on the remaining fabrication inputs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit on welding electrodes was admissible as capital goods or inputs. (ii) Whether credit could be denied on shapes, sections, MS bars, HR coils and steel plates used as raw material for fabrication of capital goods in the factory.

Issue (i): Whether credit on welding electrodes was admissible as capital goods or inputs.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by earlier Tribunal and Larger Bench rulings which held that welding electrodes are not eligible for credit either as capital goods or as inputs. On that basis, the denial of credit on welding electrodes was held to be correct.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on welding electrodes is upheld and this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether credit could be denied on shapes, sections, MS bars, HR coils and steel plates used as raw material for fabrication of capital goods in the factory.

Analysis: Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules permitted credit on inputs even where such inputs were used in the manufacture of capital goods, provided the capital goods were used in the factory of production. Since the goods were used for fabrication of capital goods for expansion of the treatment plant and reactor, denial of credit merely because they formed raw material for capital goods was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on these items is set aside and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds in part by sustaining denial of credit on welding electrodes while granting credit on the remaining items used in fabrication of capital goods, with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit is not available on welding electrodes where precedent has settled the issue against admissibility, but inputs used in fabricating capital goods in the factory cannot be denied credit merely because they are raw materials for such capital goods when the governing rule permits such credit.

---