COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. HARCHARAN AND BROS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 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:

(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it has followed its earlier decision in the case of Batliboi & Co. v. . 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: