1997 (4) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-7-1996 [1996 (87) E.L.T. 97 (T)] :- "Whether the 'clay graphite stopper' which as the name indicates is a stopper and performs the function as part of a machine can be considered to be an input in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of allowing Modvat credit." 2. Shri Satnam Singh, learned Senior Departmental Representative argued in support of the reference application and stated that the Explanation to Rule 57A specifically provides that machines, machinery, apparatus, appliance, equipment for the purpose of qualifying for Modvat benefit. In the circumstances, clay graphite stopper which is used as part of the machine will be covered by the exclusion in the Explanation Clause of Rule 57A and wil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal had entertained a series of reference applications arising from the said order filed by the concerned Commissioners and had allowed the same. Questions of law relating to the different appeals in question have been referred to the jurisdictional High Courts. Accordingly, the question posed by the Commissioner in the Reference Application is taken up for consideration. 5. Rule 57A, the benefit admissible under which is the issue involved in the appeal decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee who is the respondent in the present reference application, as it stood at the relevant period read as follows :- "Applicability. - (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to such finished goods (hereinafter referred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emsp; xxxx    xxxx    xxxx     xxxx    xxxx The Tribunal had held that on the question denying Modvat credit by the Department for clay graphite stopper on the ground that these are parts of machinery, the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the Union Carbide case would support the assessees. In that case, it had been held that the language of the exclusion clause (i) is plain and clear, and carves out "machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances.....". These expressions indicate a self-contained unit complete unit or whole unit but not any part thereof unless such part is also a complete unit in itself. The intention ....