2008 (7) TMI 55 - HC - Central Excise

Welding electrodes used for plant repairs qualify for cenvat credit as capital goods and inputs under Rule 2

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are ... Credit on welding electrodes - credit denied on ground that welding electrodes do not fall under any of the heads mentioned in Rule 2 of CCR - Whether welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for cenvat credit both as capital goods as well as inputs - HELD THAT:- The judgment in JK Cotton's case [1964 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] is read, it becomes clear, that the expression 'in the manufacture of goods' should normally encompass entire process carried on by the dealer, of converting raw materials into finished goods, where any particular process, or activity, is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of the goods, but for that process, manufacturing, or processing of the goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods required in that process would, fall within expression ' in the manufacturing of goods'. In our view the proposition propounded above sets the controversy at rest. The question, as framed, is accordingly required to be answered in favour of the assessee. Appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Issues:Whether welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for cenvat credit both as capital goods as well as inputs.Analysis:The appellant, in this case, availed modvat/cenvat credit on welding electrodes, treating them as capital goods. The issue arose when it was questioned whether welding electrodes could be considered as capital goods under Rule 2 b (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that welding electrodes fell under Chapter Heading No. 84.68, making them eligible under Rule 2(b)(iii) as they were used for maintenance of the plant for smooth running. The Dy. Commissioner, however, denied the claim stating that the welding electrodes did not fall under any specified category in Rule 2 and were used for repairing/maintenance, making them ineligible for Cenvat credit.The Commissioner upheld the denial of the claim, stating that welding electrodes did not qualify as capital goods or inputs since they were used for maintenance purposes and not in the manufacturing process of finished goods. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the High Court.The High Court analyzed previous judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CCE Vs. Jawahar Mills, which defined capital goods as machinery, equipment, tools, or appliances used for production or processing of goods. The Court also referred to the JK Cotton's case, emphasizing that goods used in any process integral to the production of goods should be considered as used 'in the manufacture of goods.'Based on these interpretations, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for cenvat credit as both capital goods and inputs. The Court disagreed with the logic presented in the JP Rewa plant mills's case and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. Consequently, the appellant was held entitled to the credit as availed, and the proceedings against them were dropped.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the eligibility of welding electrodes for cenvat credit, aligning with the broader interpretation of capital goods and inputs in the context of manufacturing processes.