ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Arguing the application for reference, Shri M.M. Dube, ld. JDR submits that in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Zenith Papers, the Tribunal had already allowed a Reference Application stating that a point of law arises. He submits, in that case, the dispute was about admissibility of Modvat credit in terms of the Explanation under Rule 57A and the question whether the parts are included in exclusion clause or not. He submits that in the instant case, the Tribunal has treated Grinding wheels, Honing stones/Sticks, and graphite crucibles and Fibre Glass Filter Mesh as parts not covered by the exclusion clause as inputs. He submits that since it is again the question of parts and their coverage by the exclusion clause or otherwise, therefore, a reference may be made.
2. Shri Anish Garg representative of the Respondents submits that the goods involved in the case referred to the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court are different from those in the present case. He submits that since the goods are different, therefore, the analogy is not correct. He, therefore, submits that no point of law arises.
3. We have heard rival submissions. We find that the ld. Commissioner, Chandigarh has formulated the question reading as “whether Grinding wheels, Honing stones/Sticks, Graphite crucibles, Fibre Glass filter mesh, machine and machinery, declared as inputs under Rule 57A, covered in the excluded category of items in terms of explanation to Rule 57A could be legally eligible for the benefit of Modvat”.
4. The term machine, machinery, plant etc. have been used in exclusion clause (i) in general sense. If their constituent are taken as excluded inputs, whereas the plant and machine is not, then the exclusion clause will be superfluous and meaningless. We note that the explanation under Rule 57A provides that plant, machinery, machine, appliances, and equipment shall be excluded as inputs for purpose of Modvat credit. This Tribunal examined this issue is a number of cases and held that parts of machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, appliances etc. are not expressly/explicitly included in the exclusion category of inputs and therefore, they will be eligible. The main view of the Tribunal was that exclusion clause cannot be read to include those items which are not expressly included in the exclusion clause. However, since the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that a point of law arises in the case cited above, we do not see any reason to disagree with that point. In the circumstances, we hold that a point of law arises. Hence, we are inclined to refer this case to the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court to decide whether parts of machine, plant, machinery, equipment, apparatus etc. as indicated in exclusion clause (i) of the explanation under Rule 57A are covered by the exclusion clause or not. The Reference Application is allowed in the above terms.
5. The papers may be sent to the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.