2015 (10) TMI 1370 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns Department's duty re-calculation and credit denial, ruling in favor of appellant

M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 618 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on end cuttings of pipes received by Sahibabad unit for re-melting.2. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance.3. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on CI Slag pots.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant company manufactures precision pipes at various units and clears them to depots across India. The dispute revolves around the Cenvat credit demand of &8377; 1,20,48,313/- against the Sahibabad unit for end cuttings of pipes received from depots. The Department argues that the credit should be restricted to the value mentioned in the invoices sent by depots, even though the original duty paid on the pipes varied. The appellant contends that the duty paid by the supplier should be credited to the recipient, citing the precedent set by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant, holding the Department's re-calculation of duty based on scrap value as incorrect. The Cenvat credit demand is deemed baseless and unsustainable.Issue 2:The second point of dispute concerns the eligibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance at the Sahibabad unit. The Department seeks to deny the credit, arguing that these electrodes are not eligible. However, the appellant cites judgments from various High Courts supporting the eligibility of such credits. The Tribunal concurs with the appellant, relying on the majority view of High Courts that welding electrodes used for plant and machinery maintenance are indeed eligible for Cenvat credit. The denial of credit on this basis is deemed unsustainable.Issue 3:The final point of contention revolves around the eligibility of Cenvat credit on CI Slag pots, a type of equipment used for handling molten metal. The appellant had claimed a Cenvat credit of &8377; 39,140/- for this item, which the Department disputed, arguing that it does not qualify as 'capital goods.' The Tribunal, referencing a previous judgment in a similar case, rules in favor of the appellant, stating that the denial of Cenvat credit for this item is not sustainable.In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the impugned order unsustainable and sets it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.