Appeals dismissed as bought-out items not proven for manufacturing; lack of interest shown.

The appeals were dismissed as the items for which Cenvat credit was sought, such as Nuts, Bolts, and Washer, were not proven to be used in manufacturing activities within the factory premises. The absence of the appellant during hearings indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the case. The bought-out items were not considered as 'inputs' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to the dismissal of the appeals both on merits and for non-prosecution. The orders of the first appellate authority were upheld based on these findings.

---

---

Issues: Admissibility of Cenvat credit for bought out items like Nuts, Bolts, and Washer cleared with finished excisable goods for erection of non-excisable Towers at site outside factory premises.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the OIA Nos. COMMR-A-/143&144/VDR-I/2010, dated 22-6-2010, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. The central issue was whether Cenvat credit is permissible for bought out items like Nuts, Bolts, and Washer, which are cleared along with finished excisable goods used for erecting non-excisable Towers at a site outside the factory premises.

2. During the hearing, no representation was made on behalf of the appellant, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case. The absence of the appellant during multiple hearings further demonstrated disinterest in the proceedings.

3. The Revenue argued that bought out items are not utilized in manufacturing activities within the factory premises but are only supplied along with tower parts. It was contended that as these items are not used in or in relation to manufacturing activities, Cenvat credit under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, should not be allowed.

4. The learned AR's argument was considered, and the case records were examined. It was noted that the items for which credit was claimed were not proven to be used in or in relation to manufacturing activities within the appellant's factory. The items did not meet the definition of 'inputs' as per Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the orders passed by the first appellate authority were deemed correct and upheld based on merits.

5. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed both on merits and for non-prosecution. The decision was based on the observation that the items for which Cenvat credit was sought did not qualify as inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing the case.

---