Commissioner of Central Excise vs Harcharan and Bros.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The first respondent is engaged in the manufacture of CI pipes. It claimed modvat credit in respect of various items including grinding wheels. The Assessee''s claim was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner. However, on appeal, the claim was allowed. The Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. The Revenue has now filed this petition u/s 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following question for the opinion of this Court:

Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing modvat credit on ''grinding wheels'' as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereas the grinding wheels are in the nature of tools?

A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it has followed its earlier decision in the case of 1998 (74) ECR 251 . Mr. Rajesh Gumber, learned Counsel has very fairly pointed out that even this Court has taken a similar view in GCR 14 of 1999 (Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers) decided on January 14, 2002. In this case, it has been held as under:

In view of the above, the position that emerges is that if the two products are treated as inputs, the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57-A However, if these are excluded from inputs by virtue of the Explanation and are included in the category of machines etc., then the Modvat credit shall be admissible under Rule 57-Q. In the ultimate analysis, the credit is admissible. Resultantly, it appears that the view taken by the Tribunal was a possible view. In the process, the Revenue has not suffered any loss.

Similar is the position in the present case. In view of the above, we find that no referable question of law arises for the opinion of this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.