9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as framed are required to be referred to the High Court as proposed by the learned Member (Judicial). The five questions are as under : (i) Whether fire bricks which form part of the electric arc furnace stand excluded from modvat coverage in terms of the explanation to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 when they fall for classification under Chapter 69 (covering ceramics) and not Chapter 84 or 85 which cover machines and machinery? (ii) Whether the items excluded specifically from the scope of the expression inputs in the Explanation to Rule 57A should be held to cover not only items like machines, machinery, equipment and apparatus but also parts thereof. (iii) Whether the majority view in the present case was correct in not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant is electric arc furnace: that refractory goods are identical to ramming mass and that Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Singh Alloys Steel Ltd. reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 had given the benefit of Modvat credit; that the ratio of the Ballarpur Industries case reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 804 was not applicable to their case inasmuch as the Apex Court was dealing with the question of raw material/component. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta Ors. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I Ors. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.) = 1996 (15) RLT 144 (CEGAT NB) had held as under : 28. An examination of various tariff items and Rule of interpretation Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances.... 3. The ld. Counsel submitted that where there are two views, the case will merit reference. He submitted that the matter on ramming mass was referred to the Hon ble Calcutta High Court. Similarly when there were two views, the matter should be referred to the High Court. In support of his contention, he cited and relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 298. The ld. Counsel also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mahendra and Mahendra reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 152. The ld. Counsel also submitted that where there was doubt, it was necessary to refer the matter to the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case for reference to the Hon ble High Court. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the facts and the case-law cited and relied upon by the appellants, I find that still there are different views held by different Benches of the Tribunal and therefore, it is a fit case for reference to the Hon ble High Court. I also observe that the issues have been correctly framed by the Member (J). In the circumstances, I agree with the findings of the ld. Member (J) holding that it is a fit case for reference. Dated : -10-1996 Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) The file is sent to the referring Bench for issuing majority order. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) In view of the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
