ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The Revenue has filed the above Reference Application seeking reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal’s Final Order No. E/1860/98-A, dated 31-12-1998 :
“Whether the benefit of Notification No. 164/87 dated 6-10-1987 can be extended to the goods which were not used for the purpose for which these were cleared under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.”
2. The issue decided by the Tribunal is whether loss during testing is covered by the language of Rule 196 so as to hold that the goods intended to be used for the purpose of Notification 164/87-C.E., dated 10-6-1987, were entitled to the benefit of the notification even though the goods were not actually used since they were lost during testing.
3. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the Tribunal’s final order, we are of the view that no question of law arises for reference since the language of Rule 196 has been interpreted to cover loss during testing as one of the.losses during handling. There is no dispute that the Track shoes manufactured by the respondents were intended to be used as original equipment parts in the manufacture of main battle tanks; however, they were not actually used because they were lost in the process of testing. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal has held in its final order that no duty is payable by the manufacturer of the track shoes. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding in general that the benefit of Notification 164/87 can be extended to the goods not used for the purpose for which they were cleared under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We therefore, see no merits in the Reference Application and accordingly dismiss it.