INDIA FABRICATORS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against Order -in -Appeals No. 430/2003 (SCN) Try -II dated 10.09.2003 by which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has denied Modvat credit of Rs. 3,87,687/ - to the appellants on welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of eligible capital goods. He has also denied an amount of Rs. 2,170/ - on the ground that the credit was taken on ineligible documents. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellant, ld. Consultant submitted that Modvat credit is admissible under Rule 57Q and Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of capital goods in the factory of production of final products during the material period. In this connection ld. Consultant relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) wherein it has been held that welding rod/welding electrodes are capital goods eligible for Modvat credit. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE Meerut v. UP State Sugar Corporation - 2002 (147) ELT 983 wherein it has been held that welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of machinery are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. As regards denial of credit of Rs. 2,170/ - ld. Consultant submitted that the supplier had by mistake mentioned the name of the different firm that the appellants in the invoice. But however the appellant had received the inputs and they were used within the factory for production. It is also submitted that payment was made for the purchase of the inputs. He also submitted that the discrepancy in the invoice being a minor one and as the totality of the facts favour them, he submitted that the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 2,170/ - is not correct. In this connection Consultant relied on a decision rendered by the Western Zonal Bench in the case of VVF Ltd. v. CCE, Surat -II - 2002 (149) ELT 646 wherein it has been held that Excise authorities should not deny credit when payment of duty was established by an assessee. He therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

(3.) Heard ld. SDR who has reiterated the findings recorded by ld. Commissioner (Appeals).