Exclusion under Rule 57A and whether it covers machinery parts was treated as a referable question of law.

Rule 57A's exclusion for machines, machinery, plant, equipment, tools and appliances used in production did not plainly settle whether parts of such items were also excluded. Because no binding Supreme Court or High Court ruling existed and the point was not self-evident, the Tribunal's consistent earlier view did not by itself justify refusing reference. The question of law was therefore treated as arising from the Tribunal's order and was referred to the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exclusion in clause (i) of the Explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 covering machine, machinery, plant, equipment, tools or appliances also extends to parts of such machinery or plant, and whether that question of law was fit for reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The exclusion clause specifically names machines, machinery, plant, equipment, tools and appliances used in producing or processing goods. The controversy was whether parts of such items are necessarily included within that exclusion. The Tribunal's earlier consistent view, and even a Larger Bench view, did not eliminate the existence of a referable question of law. In the absence of any binding decision of the Supreme Court or any High Court, and since the answer was not self-evident, the application for reference could not be refused merely because the Tribunal had taken a consistent view in prior matters.

Conclusion: The question of law was held to arise from the order of the Tribunal and was referred to the High Court.

---