CCE, TRICHY Vs. KOTHARI SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Reference application by the Revenue against the final Order No. 1041/98 dated 29.5.1998 and it raises the following questions of law seeking their reference to the Hon'ble High Court at Madras: - -

(2.) HEARD learned advocate for the respondents, who submits that a similar reference application in the respondents own case, on exactly identical issues had already been considered by this very Tribunal and the reference applications were rejected vide Reference Order No. 67 & 68/99 dated 3.9.1999. He submits that three questions raised in that reference application by the same learned Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise were also absolutely identical. In the said Reference Order, it had been held that no question of law arises out of the said final order, hence the reference application had been rejected. He files a copy thereof which has also be perused by the learned DR.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions and find that in the final order the Tribunal had come to the conclusion contained therein only after a detailed examination of a number of decisions of the Tribunal. Three of these decisions as noted above were following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M.M. Forgings with respect to the harmonious reading to Rule 57Q along with Rule 57S. Therefore, this issue is a well settled one and no point of law is required to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court in this matter. As far as the eligibility of the specific goods in question itself is concerned, there also the final order relies upon a number of earlier decisions of the Tribunal specific to the items in question and therefore, in those cases also, no point of law now emerges for being referred to the Hon'ble High Court. I also find that the concept of capital goods on the detailed judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Chemicals Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had given detailed guidelines as to the meaning of capital goods used in the manufacture of final goods. The final order clearly follows the said guidelines. I find that since the basic issue itself as to whether these goods would therefore qualify as capital goods and the nature of role played by them in the manufacturing process including the nexus thereof to the manufacturing process has already been examined in the final order in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, therefore, it cannot be said that a new point of law now emerges to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court at Madras.