Tribunal decision: Upheld some demands, allowed credit for specific machine. Pre-deposit required.

The Tribunal upheld the demands against the appellant for availing ineligible cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development works. However, the Tribunal allowed the credit for an Injection Moulding Machine used for quality control purposes. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a specific amount within a set period, with recovery of the balance amounts stayed pending appeal disposal. Compliance reporting was required, and the remaining pre-deposit waiver would be considered accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Availing ineligible cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development works.
3. Dispute regarding capital goods credit for Injection Moulding Machine.
4. Demand on inputs consumed in Research and Development and quality control.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as duty, interest, and penalty. Both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority upheld the demands due to the appellant availing ineligible cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development works.

2. The Tribunal examined the dispute concerning the capital goods credit for an Injection Moulding Machine. The machine was used by the appellant in their factory premises for testing plastic granule samples, which are the final product. The Tribunal found that the machine was essential for quality control and conforming to standards, falling within the definition of capital goods. Citing a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the Tribunal opined that the credit for the machine should be allowed. However, regarding the demand on inputs used in Research and Development, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to support the claim at present.

3. Based on the above assessment, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount within a stipulated period. The appellant was required to report compliance by a specified date, following which the application for the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts would be considered. Recovery of the balance amounts was stayed pending the appeal's disposal, subject to the appellant's compliance with the pre-deposit directive.

4. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court, outlining the decision on the stay petition and the directions regarding the pre-deposit requirement, compliance reporting, and the stay on recovery pending appeal disposal. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the eligibility of cenvat credit for the capital goods and the lack of justification for the inputs used in Research and Development activities, leading to the specified pre-deposit directive for the appellant.

---