K.C. Mamgain, Member (T) - (1.)Heard both sides.
(2.)Shri O.P. Agarwal, learned C.A., appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants are receiving steel plates which arc used for maintenance and repair of platform where raw material is fed into converter. He pleaded that platform is essential for feeding raw material into converter. Therefore, it takes part in or in relation to the manufacture of the goods and the Modvat credit should be allowed on the steel sheets/plates which are used for repair and maintenance of platform. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [1996 (82) E.L.T. 575] and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers [2002 (146) E.L.T. 518]. Relying on these decisions, he pleaded that steel sheets should be taken as an inputs and Modvat credit should be allowed on these sheets.
(3.)Shri Randhir Singh, learned ]DR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that it is an admitted fact that steel sheets are being used for repair and maintenance of the platform and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur= 2003 (88) ECC 503] had held that "repairs and maintenance of machinery are not normally done when the process of manufacture of goods with such machinery is under way. They are not a part of, or integrally connected with, the process of manufacture of final product. The welding electrodes and gases used by the appellants for repairs and maintenance of machinery cannot be considered to have been used in relation to the manufacture of final products as they were not used co -extensively with the process of manufacture of cement/clinker and hence not integrally connected with the manufacture." He also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Indo Nissan Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi [2003 (151) E.L.T. 664] wherein it was held that steel supports provided to chimney are not eligible capital goods. Me, therefore, pleaded that steel sheets under dispute in the present appeal are used only for repair/maintenance of platform and they do not participate directly or indirectly in the manufacture of the final product and, therefore, the appeal deserves rejection.