TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been admitted while framing the following question of law : (1) "Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that Welding Electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery as well as other welding work in building area are eligible for CENVAT Credit when in fact the welding electrodes are not capital goods as defined under Rule 2 (b) of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 now Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ?" (2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in deciding the issue which is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the SLP filed by the department against the relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is pending for decision ?" 3. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... still pending, therefore, it would be appropriate to wait for the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the points involved in these appeals. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. This Court, in Hindustan Zinc Ltd.'s case (supra), while considering the question of law, whether welding electrodes used for repairing and maintenance of plant & machinery both as capital goods as well as inputs, has answered the same in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by making following observations : "6. This appeal was admitted on 13th January, 2006, by framing the following substantial question of law: Whether welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for CENVAT credit both as capita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e contention of the Revenue, about the goods involved, being not satisfying the requirement of capital goods, was negatived on the ground, that it was not the case of the Revenue, set up all through. 9. On the other hand in JP Rewa's case the eligibility of credit was denied, which was claimed as "inputs". Then so far as the claim made for MODVAT credit on the basis of it being capital goods, it was denied only on the ground, that in the declaration, it was not so claimed, and the Assessee has not even furnished details of any capital goods for captive consumption, to enable the adjudicating Authority to ascertain, whether such goods were covered by definition of capital goods. Thus, for want of evidence to show, that any part of any e....