TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the same impugned order. The period involved is May, 2003 to September, 2004. The grievance of the Department is that the Adjudicating Commissioner has wrongly allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of various iron and steel products and cement used by the assessee in setting up the new integrated sponge iron plant and its auxiliary units. The grievance of the assessee is that the Adjudicating Commissioner has denied the Cenvat Credit on the three items, namely (i) Welding Electrode, (ii) Ammonium Nitrate & (iii) Galvanized Tower Materials. 2. Dr. Gautam Ray, ld. Jt. CDR assisted by Shri S. Das, ld. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar II, argues at length that the huge amount of credit granted by the ld. Adjudicating Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessee, supports the order of the Adjudicating Commissioner in respect of iron and steel products and cement. Restates that similar items have been allowed Cenvat credit by a decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the respondent assessee's own unit vide Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. v. CCE 2008 (223) ELT 517 (Trib.-Mum.). He further states that the ld. Vice President and the ld. Member sitting on that Bench actually visited the assessees' sister unit in Raigad before passing the said order. The ld. Advocate, however, fairly states that the legality of the said decision has since been questioned by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal headed by the Hon'ble President and the matter has been referred to the Larger Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the recent decision of the Honbie Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Union of India 2008 (87) RLT 563 welding electrode should be allowed Cenvat credit. The ld. Jt. CDR opposes this proposition stating that the cited decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has allowed the credit for huge quantity of welding electrode for repairing and maintenance whereas the appellant assessee has used the welding electrode for construction of the new plant. The ld. Advocate cites the following decisions for allowing such credit:- (i) CCE v. Manikgarh Cement Ltd. -2005 (190) ELT 7 (SC); (ii) Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE - 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC). Regarding tower materials, he cites the decision of the Bombay Bench in the case of Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plant area which are not clearly eligible for grant of Cenvat credit. Several decisions cited before us are also of very recent origin and none of these were available for consideration when the impugned order was passed. These decisions have been rendered keeping in view the factual matrix in each case and these are required to be considered in respect of the factual matrix of this case and hence an elaborate exercise is required at the original level in this regard. For example, the cited decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court allowing credit on welding electrode for a particular use of the same has to he seen in the context of the actual use the appellant assessee has put welding electrodes to in this case before it can be said t....