TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, for the month of March, 2002. The Original Authority had disallowed the above credit amounting to Rs. 22,94,251/- to the respondent. The appellate authority allowed the credit to the party after holding that the said materials fell within the scope of the definition of input under Rule 2(g). In the present appeal, the Revenue has raised three grounds against the grant of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 22,94,251/- to the respondent. Firstly, it is submitted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidences in respect of Acetylene gas, Coal tar pitch, pig iron, steel scrap, rods, channels, angles etc. so as to establish that these items had been actually utilized for the manufacture of new s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel submits that this is a new case sought to be framed by the Revenue inasmuch as the show-cause notice did not deny Cenvat Credit on the ground that the workshops were outside the factory premises. Ld. SDR further submits that second explanation to Rule 2(g) makes it abundantly clear that inputs do not include any goods used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods which are used otherwise than in the manufacture of final product. The point sought to be made is that any item which was used in the workshops for the repairs and maintenance of capital goods cannot claim the benefit of Cenvat credit. In this connection, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the benefit is admissible to the respondent in terms of judicial decisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely referred to the definition of input. 3. After considering the submissions, we find that the whole challenge of the Revenue is against grant of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 22,94,251/- to the respondent. The Original Authority disallowed this benefit to the assessee on the ground that the materials had been used in the workshop for the manufacture of capital goods which were, in turn, used within the factory for repairs or maintenance of machinery. The Original Authority found that the capital goods manufactured in the workshop were exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 65/95-C.E., dt. 16-3-1995. According to that authority, any material used in the manufacture of an exempted product would not be eligible for Cenvat Credit. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal product. Therefore, in our view, gross non-application of mind is writ large on the impugned order in so far as the question whether Cenvat Credit could be denied on the ground of availment of exemption under Notification No. 65/95-C.E. is concerned. If that be so, we do not think that we should embark on considering case law. 4. We are told by the Counsel that some of the materials were used for repairs and maintenance of machinery within the factory itself. In this connection ld. Counsel has taken us to a tabulated statement of the various items of "inputs" and their uses, which forms part of the reply to the show-cause notice. Some of these items such as Casting powder, pig iron etc. appear to have been used within the factory ....