2017 (10) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... capital goods installed in the factory premises. Alleging that these items are not eligible to credit, Show Cause Notice was issued to them for recovery of Rs. 1,20,924/, Rs. 3,01,131/- and Rs. 3,75,330/- for the period July 2009 to September 2009, May 2009 to June 2009 and Oct. 2009 to Nov. 2009, respectively. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty was dropped. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that all these items were used for repair and maintenance of capital goods, hence, eligible to credit as per the definition of 'input' prescribed under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. He submits that the credit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I have considered submissions from both the sides and perused the records. I find that the issue as to whether the goods used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for cenvat credit, stands decided in favour of the Appellant by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that MS/SS plates used in the workshop meant for repair and maintenance of the plant and machinery's would be liable for cenvat credit and also by the judgments of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Alfred Herbert (India) L....