TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deciding the matter in the case of Vikram Cement v. CCE., Indore in Appeal No. 1466 of 2009 while delivering the order on 23-7-2009 [2009 (242) E.L.T. 545 (Tri-Del.)] and drawing our attention to the decisions in the matter of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE., Calcutta-I reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal), Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE., Delhi-III reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.), U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. CCE., Meerut-I reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 558 (Tri-Delhi), Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 517 (Raj.), unreported orders dated 25-2-2009 in stay application No. 178 of 2009 in the matter of M/s S.K.S Ispat & Power Ltd. v. CCE., Raipur and the definition of the term "input" as is found in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture of the final products. 4. Learned Advocate also drew our attention to another judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 510 (Raj.) and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP against the said order [2007 (214) E.L.T. A115 (S.C.)]. 5. We have also perused the written synopsis filed on behalf of the appellants. 6. Undoubtedly, the Commissioner has held that the Cenvat credit is not admissible in relation to the huge machineries which cannot be considered as inputs entitled to avail Cenvat credit and further the Commissioner also held that the appellants are undertaking the repair and maintenance works in the existing plant and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eligible for such goods. It is contended for the Revenue that machine, machinery, equipment, appliances, tools etc. would necessarily embrace within their ambit parts, components or spare parts of such machines, and, therefore, the exclusion clause would apply. This is denied on behalf of assessee. On this aspect also there are conflicting decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal. We have adverted to those decisions already 20. It is admitted that all the goods in respect of which claim is made by the manufacturer in these appeals are specified inputs and their final products are specified final products. It is contended for the department that while parts and components of machines are "inputs" as defined in Rule 57A of the Rules w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e creation of goods". Undoubtedly, the expression "in relation" was given wide scope but it was essentially on the aspect that the goods so utilized need not be either the ingredients or commodities used in the process of or directly or actually need for bringing out the final product but must be essentially someway related to such process. Merely because the goods are used for repairs of the machineries that itself does not lead to the conclusion that the same is in relation to or in the process of manufacture of the final product and that is what has been explained in detailed in Vikram Cement case after taking note of various judgment including the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Hindustan Zinc case. The later judgm....