1994 (1) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The above application has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35G(1) CESA 1944 for reference to the High Court of the following questions of law purporting to arise out of the final order of the Tribunal extending the benefit of modvat credit of Rs. 79,38,597.50 to (7 ADCA) used as an input in the manufacture of final pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which has got a bearing on the decision of the case and involves central excise revenue to the extent of Rs. 79,38,597.50. 3. It is admitted that the respondent made correspondence with the department but they also cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility of the compliance of Rule 57F(2) and other procedure which resulted in wrong availment of MODVAT credit. The case fully deserves that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondents can be considered as a job worker of the Mandideep factory in the face of the admitted position that no job work charges were paid, is also a question of law for reference. The further question is as to whether the extended period of limitation has been rightly applied by the Department. 3. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Counsel draws our attention to paragraph 15 of the order of the Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... carefully considering their submissions we are of following view : Question No. 1 Having held that 7 ADCA has been rightly declared as an input for the manufacture of final product and that the position remains unaltered even if the intermediate product is a finished product by itself as long as it is used in the manufacture of the final product, no question of law arises on this issue. Ques .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Excise v. UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) ELT 475, the Tribunal has held that the question whether procedural breach committed is substantive or technical is a question of fact not referable to the High Court. Further, the Department cannot seek review of the order in the guise of a reference application. 5. Accordingly, we reject the reference application as already annou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X