2013 (6) TMI 57 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat / Modvat Credit - inputs - Wire Mesh and Felt used by the assessee in the manufacture of paper - held that - since the decision of the Tribunal is based upon its earlier decision and no decision of the Supreme Court or High Court is cited either way and therefore, the questions proposed are referable questions of law with a view to examine as to whether the view taken by the Tribunal in Union Carbide case (1996 (6) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) is just and proper or it requires any modification. In other words, the questions proposed are questions of law and being referable one to this Court, the application made by the applicant-Revenue deserves to be and is, accordingly, allowed. - matter required to be referred to the high court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "Input" under Rule 57A and "Capital Goods" under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Validity of relying on a previous decision by the Tribunal when the legality of that decision is under challenge before the next Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, seeking to challenge an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement of a company, engaged in paper manufacturing, to claim Modvat Credit on Wire Mesh and Felt used in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the company, considering Wire Mesh and Felt as Inputs eligible for Modvat Credit. The Revenue raised questions on whether Wire Mesh and Felt should be classified as Inputs or Capital Goods under the Act. The Tribunal based its decision on a prior case, Union Carbide v. C.C.E., where a similar ruling was made, leading to the Revenue's application against the Tribunal's decision.

2. The High Court found that the questions raised by the Revenue were indeed questions of law, as the Tribunal's decision relied on its own previous ruling without citing any Supreme Court or High Court decisions to support its stance. The Court deemed it necessary to examine whether the Tribunal's reliance on the Union Carbide case was appropriate or needed modification. Consequently, the Court allowed the Revenue's application and directed the Tribunal to refer the questions of law, along with a statement of the case, for the Court's consideration under Section 35(H)(1) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the interpretation of the definitions of "Input" and "Capital Goods" under the Central Excise Act, addressing the validity of the Tribunal's decision based on a prior case. The Court's decision to allow the Revenue's application for further examination of the legal questions highlighted the importance of clarity and consistency in legal interpretations within the realm of customs and excise regulations.