Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Director Of Inspection, Customs ... on 29 March, 1985
4. On an examination of the issues involved in the light of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Rule 57-F(l) which refers to the use in or in relation to the manufacture of final products for which the inputs have been brought into the factory, this would point to utilisation of the inputs in question in the factory. Admittedly, in the present case the inputs for which credit has been sought are not brought to the factory but these are used in the mines for extracting the limestone and other material which are then brought to the factory for use in the process of manufacture of the declared final product, 'cement'. On this basis, it cannot be accepted that the explosives in question are direct inputs in the manufacture of cement. The learned Counsel on this point gave a rejoinder that the provisions of Rule 57-A which constitute the basic provisions for grant of Modvat facility not carry such a restriction about the place of utilisation of the material which credit has been sought. He points out that there is an apparent conflict between the provisions of Rule 57-A and 57-F. In fact, on this question, a reference application has been filed by the East Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE which is one of the cases referred to by the learned Counsel. In the circumstances, it is felt the present case may be adjourned to a later date for re-examination of the matter in the light of the position of law which may be set out by the Hon'ble Court on the reference application made to them. Adjourned to 24th May, 1996. Copy of this interim order to be served on both sides.