COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in the present case is whether the spot welding electrodes are entitled to the Modvat credit as input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Learned advocate Shri M.P. Devnath, for the respondents in this appeal submits at the outset that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in their own case vide the Final Order Nos. A/840 -44/98 -NB(DB), dated 11 -9 -98 -Para 23. For better appreciation of the arguments we reproduce para 23 of the said judgment of the Tribunal:

(2.) LEARNED advocate also submits that in the said case the Division Bench has considered the judgment of Single Member in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. It also considered the Division Bench judgment in the case of Telco decided by Order Nos. 2188 -95/95/WRB, dated 9 -11 -95. After a detailed discussion Division Bench of WRB has come to a finding that spot welding electrodes are entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A and they are not hit by exclusion clause of Explanation to Rule 57A. Learned advocate therefore submits that the matter being covered in their favour, Revenue's appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned DR Shri Sanjiv Srivastava for the Revenue submits that Division Bench judgment in the case of Telco (supra) has not correctly distinguished the Single Member's judgment supra. The said Division Bench has drawn a wrong analogy from the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Gujarat Alkalies case reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 424 inasmuch as electrodes mentioned in M/s. Gujarat Alkalies is in the sense of cathodes and anodes and which are not involved herein. We observe that apart from this analogy drawn from Gujarat Alkalies, there are other arguments given by the Division Bench in Telco for holding that spot welding electrodes are covered by the Explanation to Rule 57A defining the expression "input" and these are not hit by the exclusion clause. We have gone through the judgment of West Regional Bench in M/s. Telco as also the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents. We do not agree with the contention of the ld. JDR that this issue is fit for referring to the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting judgments of the Single Member Bench in the case of Bajaj Tempo and the Division Bench judgment in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Telco.