1996 (10) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned Member (Technical) or the questions 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lining furnace. The ld. Counsel submitted that in their case what is relevant 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 : ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age of exclusion clause (i) is plain and clear. It carves out `machines, machinery, 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 s....