2000 (3) TMI 79 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether Ramming Mass and Oxygen/Acetylene can be treated as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute regarding the eligibility of Ramming Mass and Oxygen/Acetylene as inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel items, availed credit on these materials, which the Department contested. The Assistant Collector disallowed the Modvat credit, leading to appeals and subsequent decisions by the appellate authority and the Tribunal.

2. Various judicial precedents were cited to support both sides of the argument. In Singh Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the Calcutta High Court held that Ramming Mass used in steel manufacturing qualifies as an input for Modvat credit. However, the Karnataka High Court in Canara Steel Ltd. v. Union of India took a contrary view, considering Ramming Mass as part of machinery and not an input.

3. The Tribunal itself had conflicting decisions in cases like Modella Steel Alloys Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore and Keshari Steels v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore. While one decision favored the eligibility of Ramming Mass and Oxygen/Acetylene for Modvat credit, another decision was pending appeal before the Supreme Court.

4. Given the contradictory views of different High Courts and the pending appeal before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to refer the question of law to the High Court as provided by Section 35H of the Act. This decision aligns with the principle that in cases where similar questions of law have been answered differently, a referral to a higher court is warranted for clarification.

5. The Tribunal's decision to refer the question to the High Court ensures a comprehensive and authoritative resolution to the issue of whether Ramming Mass and Oxygen/Acetylene can be considered inputs eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The legal analysis and interpretation of relevant precedents highlight the complexity and significance of this matter, necessitating a definitive judicial clarification.