1994 (1) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of statutory requirements for availing modvat credit.
2. Determination of job worker status in a manufacturing setup.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for availing MODVAT credit.
4. Classification of mandatory requirements as lapses under technical nature.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Interpretation of statutory requirements for availing modvat credit:
The Revenue filed an application seeking reference to the High Court regarding the declaration of 7 ADCA as an input for modvat credit, even though it was not explicitly declared as such by the Respondent. The Tribunal held that as long as 7 ADCA was used in the manufacture of the final product, it could be considered an input, regardless of its intermediate product status. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no question of law arose on this issue.

Issue 2 - Determination of job worker status:
The question of whether one manufacturing unit could be considered a job worker of another unit was raised. The Tribunal determined this to be a question of fact based on the evidence presented. It was concluded that the Ankleshwar unit was indeed a job worker of the Mandideep unit. As a question of fact, it was deemed unnecessary to refer this issue to the High Court.

Issue 3 - Compliance with procedural requirements for availing MODVAT credit:
The issue of compliance with Rule 57F(2) and other procedures for availing MODVAT credit was raised. The Respondent argued that they had followed the prescribed procedures and that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since the previous issues did not require reference, the same applied to this issue.

Issue 4 - Classification of mandatory requirements as lapses under technical nature:
The question of whether a mandatory requirement could be considered a lapse under technical nature was discussed. The Tribunal cited a legal precedent where procedural breaches were deemed technical and not substantive. It was established that settled legal issues could not be referred for further review. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the reference application, stating that the Department could not seek a review of the order through a reference application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the reference application as no substantial questions of law were found to arise from the issues raised by the Revenue.