2008 (7) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground, that assessee has availed modvat/cenvat credit on welding electrodes, during June, 2003 to March, 2004, treating the same as capital goods, whereas the same appeared not to be covered under the definition of capital goods. 3. The assessee contested the notice and contended, that while electrodes were not used by them for fabrication of structure/sheds, rather they are accessories of machinery for soldering, brazing or welding, falling under Chapter Heading No.84.68 and since Chapter Heading No. 84.68 is an item, eligible under Rule 2 b (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the welding electrodes acquires eligibility under Rule 2(b)(iii). It was also contended, that if the credit is not allowed under capital good scheme, then, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel for the department, and have also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in CCE Vs. Jawahar Mills, reported in 2001 (132) ELT 3, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. In judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawahar's case, it is held, that capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances. Any of these goods, if used for producing, or processing of any goods, or for bringing about any change in any substance, for the manufacture of final product, would be 'capital goods', and would qualify for Modvat credit. Then as per clause-b the components, spare parts and accessories of the goods mentioned above, would also be capital goods, and would qualify for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Officer, Kanpur, reported in 1997 (91) ELT 34, has a material bearing on the controversy involved in the present case. It may be noticed, that the tribunal in J.P. Rewa case has referred to this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in JK Cotton's case, by reproducing a part of the head note, but then, the very significant continuing next sentence has been omitted from consideration, in as much as the sentence following the portion quoted by the tribunal, is as under: "They need not be ingredients or commodities used in the processes, nor must they be directly and actually needed for "turning out or the creation of goods" 12. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court even went to the extent of holding, that use of electrical equipments, like l....