Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : The Ramco Cements Limited Vs CCT (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : E/30503/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/07/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

The Ramco Cements Limited Vs CCT (CESTAT Hyderabad)

It is not in dispute that the welding electrodes are used for repair and maintenance of capital goods within the factory of manufacturer and these capital goods are used for manufacture of the final product although the relationship is remote and not direct. So by no stretch of imagination can it be said that these welding electrodes have no relationship whatsoever with the manufacture of the final product. Therefore, in terms of the amended definition of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (after 2011) as is applicable to the relevant period, the welding electrodes can definitely be called inputs. I, therefore, find that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd (supra) does not apply in view of the revised CENVAT Credit Rules. In consequence, I find that the assessee is entitled to input credit on the welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of machinery in his factory. Consequently, the Orders-in-Appeal are liable to be set aside and I do so.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant against the Orders-in-Appeal No. GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-191 to 193-17-18 dated 07.02.2018.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The issue in brief is that the appellant is a manufacturer of cement and he has used welding electrodes in repairs and maintenance of the machinery and availed CENVAT Credit on the duty paid on the welding electrodes during the period May, 2013 to May,2015. The department issued show cause notice seeking to deny this CENVAT credit on the ground that the welding electrodes were not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and therefore, no credit is admissible as they do not qualify to be called as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Learned lower authority confirmed the demands against which the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were rejected. The present appeals are against this Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Learned First Appellate authority.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031