1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Central Excise Appeal No. 4 of 2009 [M/s. Lloyds Metals & Engineers Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Aparajit Ninawe, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 10th November, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Appellant is taking exception to the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal disllowing Cenvat Credit in so far as welding electrodes are concerned. 3. The notices of Show Cause [Annexs.B and C] at pages 18 and 21 respectively contain the factual matter due to which disallowance was notified which reads as follows:- 2. ........................... On further scrutiny of records, it was observed that the noticee is utilizing the Welding Electrode for repairing/maintenance of capital 2 goods and availing Cenvat Credit on these inputs and utilizing the same towards payment of Central Excise duty on their final products. 4. This aspect has been dealt with in appellant s reply [Annex.D] at page 25 of the appeal paper-book in the following manner:- ................................... the impugned inputs including the welding electrodes were used in or in relation to manufacture of the final products and they were covered by the definition inputs under the Cenvat scheme. ..... 5. It is clear that the contention of the Revenue included in the Show-cause-Notices that the electrodes were used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods has not been explained, denied etc. 6. It is not the case of the appellant that a large volume of electrodes was purchased, out of which the certain volume for which the portion of Cenvat credit was claimed, was actual input, and the remaining stock was used for repairs and maintenance. In absence of any such explanation, no grounds are disclosed as a foundation for challenge to the impugned order. 7. We have perused the judgments cited at bar, and we find that those have no bearing to the facts of the present case. 3 8. Learned Adv. for the appellant relied on following precedents to substantiate his contention:- [a] Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangha [2001-EQ (SC)-0-726], [b] Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2006 (01)LCX0002], [c] SAIL Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi [2007 (07) LCX 0278], and [d] Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors. [2008 (07) LCX 001]. 9. Impugned order, therefore, does not call for interference. 10. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 11. Learned Adv. for the appellant prays for stay of order dismissing the appeal for four weeks. 12. An order dismissing the appeal is not of executable nature and hence request for stay is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|