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>Manufacturers win Cenvat credit for welding electrodes & spare parts under Cenvat Credit Rules</h1> <h3>JINDAL SAW LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW</h3> JINDAL SAW LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 139 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Eligibility for Cenvat credit on parts of machinery.2. Denial of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes and spare parts of the pipe coating plant.3. Confirmation of Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty by the Assistant Commissioner.4. Upholding of the Assistant Commissioner's order by the Commissioner (Appeals).5. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.Analysis:1. The appellants, manufacturers of coated pipes, contested the denial of Cenvat credit for parts of machinery, including welding electrodes and spare parts of the pipe coating plant. The dispute centered on whether these items qualified for Cenvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 81,253 along with interest and imposed an equal penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the filing of the current appeal.2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel cited judgments from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, supporting the admissibility of Cenvat credit for welding electrodes used in plant and machinery repair. Regarding spare parts of the pipe coating machine, despite their classification under Heading 8709, the counsel argued that they fell within the definition of 'capital goods' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that the demand for Cenvat credit was time-barred, lacked grounds for invoking an extended period, and thus, the impugned order was incorrect.3. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay application, reiterating the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings and emphasizing that spare parts classified under Heading 8709 were not covered by the definition of capital goods. However, the Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the records, found merit in the appellant's arguments. Citing the judgments from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit for welding electrodes.4. The Tribunal also determined that spare parts for the pipe coating machinery, being integral to the capital goods category, were eligible for Cenvat credit. By invoking clause (iii) of Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the Tribunal clarified that spare parts falling under specific chapters could be of any heading. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was incorrect, granting a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement for the Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal allowed the stay application, halting the recovery process until the appeal's final disposal.
TaxTMI 