CCE DELHI., II Vs. PRATAP STEEL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal, filed by /revenue is whether modvat credit of duty paid on Ramming Mass is available under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules.

(2.) THE Ld. DR., submitted that ramming mass is used as lining material for the electric furnace and is covered by the exlusion clause of Explantation to Rule 57A that the Department has filed an appeal i the Supreme Court against the Order No. A/808/94 in the case of Kesari Steel Vs. CCE involving the question of eligibility of ramming mass to Modvat Credit.

(3.) OPPOSING the prayer, Shri M.P. Devnath, Id. Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the modvat credit in respect of ramming mass folowing the decision in the case of Kalyani Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, 1998(98); that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. AB Tools Ltd 1994 (71) ELT 776 held that ramming mass is to be considered as input and is eligible of modvat credit following the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Singh Alloys Vs. CCE 1993(66) ELT 594 (Cal). Finally he mentioned that on a reference, the Karnataka High Court in case of Escorts Ltd Vs. CCE Banglore 2000(41) 746 (Kar) has held that "Whenever the exclusion clause is to be restricted only to the word used therein. Rule 57 A will include even the items which are used in the manufacture of the product. The word in elation to therefore, has to be given a wider meaning". The Karnataka High Court, therefore, allowed the Reference by holding that modvat credit is available in respect of ramming mass used in or in relation to the manufactures of pistons.