1994 (8) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 31 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules regarding the composition of the Bench for hearing reference applications.
2. Whether a specific direction from the President of the Tribunal is required for each reference application with a changed composition of the Bench.
3. Determination of whether Mercury Cathode and Graphite Anode are eligible for Modvat benefit.

Interpretation of Rule 31 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules:
The issue arose regarding the composition of the Bench for hearing reference applications under Rule 31 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Joint Chief Departmental Representative contended that the Bench hearing the reference application should consist of the same Members who heard the appeal giving rise to the application. However, it was clarified that Rule 31 does not necessitate the same Members but the same Bench for reference applications. The Tribunal noted the difference in language between Rule 31 and Rule 31A, emphasizing that the requirement is for the same Bench, not necessarily the same Members.

Requirement of Specific Direction for Changed Bench Composition:
The debate continued on whether a specific direction from the President of the Tribunal is necessary for each reference application with a changed Bench composition. The Senior Advocate for the respondents argued that Rule 31 only requires the same Bench, not the same Members. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the President clarifying that reference applications must be heard by the Benches as constituted on the day of the hearing, unless directed otherwise. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that a specific clearance for each reference application is not essential.

Eligibility of Mercury Cathode and Graphite Anode for Modvat Benefit:
The reference application questioned whether Mercury Cathode and Graphite Anode used in the manufacture of Caustic Soda are eligible for Modvat benefit. The Departmental Representative argued that these items should be excluded from Modvat benefit as they are part of the machinery for manufacturing Caustic Soda. He cited Tribunal decisions and contended that a question of law has arisen due to divergence in views. The respondents, however, argued that the issue was covered by previous Tribunal decisions and no new question of law emerged. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and held that the electrodes do not fall under excluded items in Rule 57A, dismissing the Reference Application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 31, ruled on the necessity of a specific direction for changed Bench composition, and determined the eligibility of Mercury Cathode and Graphite Anode for Modvat benefit, ultimately dismissing the Reference Application based on the electrodes not being excluded items under Rule 57A.