2018 (8) TMI 1582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for the respondents ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 1] Nobody for petitioner. We have heard Shri S.N. Bhattad, learned advocate for the respondents. 2] Contention is, 7 appliances / instruments mentioned in para no. 10 of writ petition are used for maintenance which is an integral part of manufacturing process and as such input credit availed by p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cturing process. 4] This order is questioned in present petition. However in petition, petitioner does not dispute the finding of fact about nature of use mentioned supra. 5] Advocate Bhattad has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at AIR 2011 SCC 3286 (Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III). Consideration in para nos. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise) has considered this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that welding electrodes used for welding of machines and machine parts constituting repair work do not qualify as capital goods and no CENVAT/ MODVAT credit can be availed on it. 7] Advocate Bhattad has also invited our attention to a judgment delivered by this Court in 2010 (25....