ORDER
V. K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. In these five appeals against common Order-in-Appeal No. 29/98, dated 14-8-1998, Modvat on Lubricant Oil and Grease has been denied by Order-in-Original Nos. 29/96, dated 18-6-1996, 30/96, dated 18-6-1996 and 34/96, dated 27-6-1996, which have been uphold by the said Order-in-Appeal.
2. Heard Shri P.V. Srinivasa Raghavan, ld. Advocate for the appellants. He submits that the issue is a covered one as follows: In the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company as reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 34 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Apex Court had examined the merit of the phrases “in the manufactaure of goods”, proceeding under Rule 57A and 57Q relating to Modvat and had held that such inputs would qualify for credit even if they are not ingredients or commodities used in the manufacturing process and not directly and actually needed for the creation of the goods. The said principle was adopted in the decision of the Larger Bench of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575 wherein it was held that even sand moulds would qualify for Modvat credit thereof laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). He further submitted that in the case of Pragati Paper Mills (P) Ltd. as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 137 (Tribunal) the Hon’ble Tribunal relying on both the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) had held that Mobil oil (Lubricating oil) used in machine are in turn is used in relation to the manufacture of final product would qualify for input under Rule 57A. Ld. Advocate also submits that this decision has been relied upon in the case of Susheela Steel as reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 237 (Tribunal) wherein lubricating oil applied on the machine and machinery has been allowed Modvat credit under Rule 57A. Ld. Advocate therefore submits that the facts of this case is identical and ratio thereof needs to be applied in their case and both lubricating oil and grease are actually performs the same function on machines and would qualify as inputs.
3. Heard Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, ld. JDR who submits that Order-in-Appeal has been passed on the basis of the case law in the appellant’s own case vide Final Order No. 2472 to 2477/97, dated 11-7-1997 [1998 (99) E.L.T. 395 (T)] wherein the credit has been disallowed. He, therefore, submits that there are contrary decisions in the matter.
3. At this point ld. Advocate rises to submit that in their own case the Reference filed against final order cited by the ld. JDR was dismissed by the Tribunal. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has required that the question of law be placed before it by this Tribunal including the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to avail Modvat credit in respect of Lubricating oil, amongst others, vide Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 18-2-1999 in CERC No. 1/98. In view of the reference having been admitted by the Hon’ble High Court on this issue, the final case law cited supra by him would prevail over this isolated order of this Tribunal.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as the records of the case. Since the issue is already a covered one, after granting waiver and stay of recovery, I proceed to consider the main appeals themselves.
5. I find that the issue of availability of Modvat credit on Lubricating oils under Rule 57A has been directly addressed in the decisions of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Pragati Paper Mills and Shushila Steels (supra). I also find that the role of greases is identical to the role played by lubricating oil as both are applied to various machines to reduce friction and thereby ensuring the quality of final product, therefore as against this, the solitary decision of this Tribunal noted above against the appellants has been required to be referred to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on this very issue. Therefore, there is a great merit in the submission of ld. Advocate that this solitary decision should not be allowed to stand in the way of well settled case law cited supra on the issue of lubricating oil, etc. Under these circumstances, respectfully applying the ratio of these two decisions directly relating to lubricating oil and in view of the findings above, I find that Lubricating oil and grease would qualify as inputs under Rule 57A in the circumstances of this case and therefore I set aside the Order-in-Appeal impugned. The appeals succeed with consequential relief, as per law.