Per Ashok Jindal : This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal wherein it was held that welding electrodes used in the factory premises for the purpose of repair and maintenance of capital goods are eligible for Cenvat credit.

2. The issue in this case relates to that whether the respondent is entitled for Cenvat credit of Rs.18,854/- availed on Arc Welding Electrodes used in the manufacture of capital goods.

3. The contention of the respondent is that the Board vide Circular No.3/92-CX.8 dated 28/1/92 is clarified that Arc Welding Electrodes are inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods.

4. The Ld. JDR relied on the following judgements:-

a) Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2003 (57) RLT 739 (CEGAT-LB)=2003 (159) ELT 553 (Tri-LB) wherein it was held that Cenvat/Modvat credit used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery - Not used co-extensively with the process of manufacture of final products, hence, not integrally connected with the manufacture - Cannot be considered to have been used in the manufacture of final products - Not eligible inputs for credit.

b) Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut, 2005 (69) RLT 491 (CESTAT-LB)=2005 (186) ELT 158 (Tri-LB) wherein it was held that Welding Electrodes used in maintenance of capital goods, hence not entitled for benefit of Modvat credit as goods used for maintenance are not covered under Rule 57Q.

c) SAIL Vs. CCE, Ranchi, 2008 (84) RLT 37 (CESTAT-Kol.)=2008 (222) ELT 233 (Tri-Kolkata) wherein Cenvat/Modvat credit on Welding Electrodes which are used for repair and maintenance of the machinery was denied.

5. The Ld. JDR further stated that the orders passed by the Larger Bench in the case of SAIL upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further he relied on Ramala Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, 2007 (211) ELT 412 (Tri-Del) wherein it was held that Welding Electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery - Not eligible for credit either as capital goods or as inputs.

6. On specific query, the Ld. JDR filed copies of the judgements passed in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Vs. UOI, 2008 (87) RLT 563 (Raj.)=2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj), UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, 2009-TIOL-452-CESTAT-DEL and CCE, Nagpur Vs. Shri Siddhabali Ispat Ltd., 2009-TIOL-782-CESTAT-MUM. In the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan held that the Cenvat Credit - Welding electrodes - Cenvat credit whether admissible on welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery - Supreme Court ruling in 2001 (45) RLT 739 (SC)=2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) holding that the language in relevant provisions to be interpreted liberally and use in factory of manufacturer being the only requirement to determine Cenvat credit eligibility - Tribunal Larger Bench in 2003 (57) RLT 739 (CEGAT-LB)=2003 (159) ELT 553 (Tri-LB) denied credit for want of evidence on electrodes being used in manufacture of capital goods - Expression 'in the manufacture of goods' encompassing entire process of converting raw materials into finished goods - Where any particular process is integrally connected without which manufacturing not viable and goods used therein covered for credit purpose - Tribunal Larger Bench decision over ruled - Cenvat credit admissible on welding electrodes - Rules 2, 3 and 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - Rules 2, 3 and 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and in the case of UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut-I (supra), the Tribunal held that the welding electrodes used in maintenance and repair of machinery are eligible for Cenvat credit.

7. Ld. DR have pointed out that on this very issue the Tribunal in the case of SAIL (supra) has taken a contrary view and - SLP filed by the SAIL before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the dismissal order indicates that the SLP had been dismissed after taken into account the facts of this case.

8.