2014 (3) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed upon the following decisions: 1. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj)]; 2. CCE, Bangalore vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. [2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar)]; 3. Panipat Co-operative sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak [2013 (293) ELT 66 (Tri-Del)]; 4. Triveni Engg. & INd. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I Final Order No. A/56117-56118/2013-SM(BR) dated 28.3.13. 2. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue have referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SAIL vs. CCE, Ranchi [2008 (222) ELT 233 (Tri-Kol)] as confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [2002 (139) ELT A 294 (SC)]. Further, it stand brought to our notice that Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Lt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There is no dispute that the welding electrodes in question, have been used for repair & maintenance of plant and machinery. It is also not disputed that regular repair & maintenance of plant and machinery of a Sugar Mills is an essential activity. 6. The definition of 'input' during the period of dispute, as given in Rule 2 (k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules'2004, covered- 'all goods except Light Diesel Oil, HSD and Motor Spirit commonly known as petrol, used in or in relation to manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not and includes'. The expression 'used in or in relation to manufacture of final pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sories required for effective operation of those vehicles were also held to fall within Rule 13, See Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar CA No. 1021 of 1969 dt. 19.10.1964. Thus, in term of the above judgment of the Apex Court the goods used in an activity, without which manufacturing, operations, though theoretically possible, are not commercially feasible, have to be treated as ,used in the manufacture of the final products. 6.1 When the Apex Court has interpreted the expression 'used in manufacture' in the above manner, the scope of the expression 'used in or in relation to manufacture' whether directly or 'indirectly' would be much wider. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Singh Alloy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olkata) the SLP filed by SAIL against which has been dismissed by the Apex Court and has observed that mere dismissal of SLP without giving any reason does not lay down any law. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2008(228) ELT-517 (Raj.) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. reported in 2010(257) ELT-29 (Kar) has also held that the goods used for repair & maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for Cenvat Credit. 8. Though Apex Court in case of Grasim Industries Ltd. reported in 2011 (273) ELT- 10 (SC) has held that repair & maintenance of machinery is not manufacture and therefore steal scrap, arising in course of the said activity is not excisable, this judg....