1. Both the Reference Applications have been moved by the Revenue in respect of this Bench's final Order No. 1551-53/93-WRB, dated 27-8-1993, allowing the appeals of the respondents by a common order.
2. The respondents M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. are manufacturer of Motor Vehicles. They carry on the manufacturing activities in more than one unit. Likewise M/s. Swil Ltd. are the manufacturers of copper wire, rods, sheets, stainless steel & nickel wire and they also carry on the manufacture in more than one unit. In both the cases, the respondents receive the inputs such as steel, copper etc. (which are hereinafter referred to as basic inputs) and take Modvat credit of duty paid on them. They use these basic inputs in the manufacture of final products, part of which are produced in the same unit and part of the final product are manufactured in another unit. They remove the intermediate goods (hereinafter referred to as intermediate inputs) for captive use within the same factory or remove to another unit belonging to them by availing exemption under Notification 217/86, as amended by Notification 97/89. They took Modvat Credit of duty paid on basic inputs and these basic inputs were used at the first stage, in the manufacture of intermediate inputs, which are captively consumed in the same factory or in another unit of the respondents. Modvate credit of duty paid on basic inputs was allowed by the department in respect of captive use within the same factory applying the provisions of Rule 57D. However the Department denied the Modvat credit of duty on basic inputs used in intermediate inputs removed to another unit removed in bond tinder Notification 217/86. There was no dispute that basic inputs are eligible inputs both for manufacture of intermediate products as well as the ultimate final products. There was also no dispute that the ultimate final products produced in the same factory or in the other unit of the same respondent was cleared on payment of duty. The Department held that in so far as interplant removals are concerned, the intermediate inputs are cleared as final products outside the factory availing total exemption and hence Rule 57C would be attracted.
Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs was therefore denied. The dispute came upon appeal before the Tribunal, which was decided in favour of the respondents, by allowing their appeals. Hence these Reference Applications have been moved by the Collector agitating that our interpretation on the points of law calls for a reference to the High Court as required under Section 35G of the Central Excises Act.
3. Heard both the sides. Apart from reiterating their arguments, made at the time of hearing the appeals, it was pleaded by SDR that the issue relates to the interpretation of the provisions of law relating to Modvat scheme. The manner of our interpretation is strictly not in accordance with the provisions of Rules 57C and 57D. It is not open for us to supplement what is lacking, on a strict construction of law as it is worded. For the sake of brevity we are dealing with their submissions at the appropriate place in the order.
4. After hearing both the sides, the issue raised by the Revenue in both the Reference Applications relate to our interpretation of the provisions of Rule 57C vis-a-vis Rule 57D in the context of the provisions of Notification 217/86 as amended by Notification 97/89.
This notification exempts goods manufactured in a factory (referred to in the notification as inputs) used captively in the further manufacture of final products, which are to be cleared on payment of duty whether in the same factory of production or in another factory of the same manufacturer, in which case such inputs should be cleared under bond in terms of Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules and utilised in the dutiable final products in the other factory. Text of this notification as amended is at Annexure A.5. On a reading of the Notification No. 217/86, prior to its amendment by Notification No. 97/89, dated 1-3-1989, we find that it was earlier confined to exemption for such products (referred to in the Notification as inputs) used captively in the same factory in further manufacture of final products to be cleared on payment of duty from the said factory. If such goods manufactured are to be cleared to another factory of the same manufacturer, prior to amendment, duty was to be paid on their intermediate inputs and cleared to another unit, in which case Modvat credit of duty paid on these intermediate inputs cleared on payment of duty would be available towards payment of duty on the ultimate final product. If these intermediate inputs are cleared for captive use within the same factory, there is no requirement of payment of duty on such intermediate products, provided they are used in the manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty.
6. It was brought to our notice that amending Notification 97/89 permitting interplant removals of intermediate inputs for captive use in another unit of the same manufacturer was issued based on representations from trade, as a measure of procedural simplicity to avert payment of duty at intermediate stage because of legal requirement of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Ex. Rules and thereafter taking credit of such duty paid for clearance of the products at next stage in the line of manufacture of the same manufacturer. Text of the amending Notification 97/89 reads as below "In the opening paragraph, after the words' used within the factory of production, the words "or in any other factory of the same manufacturer" shall be inserted, after the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted namely "provided further where such use of inputs is in a factory of a manufacturer different from the factory, where the goods have been produced, the exemption contained in the notification shall be allowed subject to the observance of the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". The purport of the amendment is to ensure that intermediate inputs cleared for captive use in another unit need not pay-duty. To ensure correlation of this, in the case of interplant transfers, movement of such intermediate inputs is sought to be regulated in bond in terms of Chapter X procedure.
6.2 The issue raised in the two reference applications is whether Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs can be allowed in the case of interplant removals of intermediate inputs for captive use in the manufacture of dutiable final product ultimately cleared from the other unit in terms of the above amending notification. In so far as intermediate inputs consumed cap-tively within the same factory, the department does not have any objection to allow Modvat credit of duty on basic inputs. They apply Rule 57D in the case of removals of intermediate inputs within the factory. The said Rule 57D reads thus : Rule 57D : Credit of duty not to be denied or varied in certain circumstances - (1) Credit of specified duty allowed in respect of any inputs shall not be denied or varied on the ground that part of the inputs is contained in any waste, refuse or by-product arising during the manufacture of the final product, (or that the inputs have become waste in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product), whether or not such waste, refuse or by-product is exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty or is not specified as a final product under Rule 57A. (2) Credit of specified duty allowed in respect of any inputs shall not be denied or varied on the ground that any intermediate products have come into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product and that such intermediate products are for the time being exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon (or chargeable to nil rate of duty): (a) used within the factory of production (in the manufacture of a final product other than those cleared either to a unit in a Free Trade Zone or to a hundred per cent Export-Oriented Unit) on which the duty of excise is leviable whether in whole or in part and (b) specified as inputs or as final product under a notification issued under 57A).
But when it came to removals of such intermediate goods under Chapter X procedure in terms of the said notification for captive use in another unit of the same manufacturer, the department has serious objection citing the provisions of Rule 57C, which reads thus : Rule 57C : Credit of duty not to be allowed if final products are exempt - No credit of the specified duty paid on the inputs used (in the manufacture of a final product other than those cleared either to a unit in a free trade zone or to a hundred per cent Export Oriented Unit) shall be allowed, if the final product is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty.
7. The Revenue contends that the intermediate products are cleared as final products from the factory of origin to another factory of the same manufacturer under a full exemption in terms of Notification 217/86 and hence Rule 57C is attracted. We have held in the aforesaid order that viewed in the context of Notification 217/86 based on the Modvat scheme including the amendment carried out by Notification 97/89, so long as the ultimate final product from the other unit of the same manufacturer is cleared on payment of duty and where such intermediate inputs are used in such ultimate final products, there is no justification for denial of Modvat credit of duty paid as the basic inputs, used through the medium of intermediate inputs in the manufacture of the ultimate final products.
8. For taking this view, we were guided by the following considerations : 8.1 Notification 217/86, unlike other exemption notifications, is esoteric to the Modvat scheme and is entirely based on the Modvat scheme. Even the schedule annexed to the notification specifying chapters of Central Excise Tariff as inputs and final products is the same as the one found in the Notification issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.
8.2 The said Notification envisages the principle of "later the better " and is intended to give effect to the principle. But for this notification, as per the amended provisons of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, payment of duty at each intermediate stage for captive use is to be made. In the context of availability of Modvat Credit at each stage in reject of the goods covered by Modvat scheme and having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary work of paying duty at each stage and taking credit at the next stage, Notification 217/86 has been issued in alignment with the notification issued under Rule 57A and setting out the same conditions as laid down in the Modvat scheme.
8.3 Hence viewed in the above context, it appeared to us that Notification 217/86 read in the context of Modvat scheme is with a view to avert payment of duty at each intermediate stage in the line of manufacture of a final product by the manufacturer, whether in the same factory or in another unit, so long as the inputs are established to have been used in the dutiable final products. Such a correlation is sought to be established in the notification 217/86 itself by stipulating such removals of intermediate inputs in bond under Chapter X of the Rules. We took the view that if intermediate inputs (referred to as inputs in the notification) are to be cleared on payment of duty for maintaining the chain of credit of duty paid on basic inputs, the object of amendment carried out under Notification 97/89 permitting inter-plant removals in respect of the same manufacturer would be detected. If Rule 57C is applied in regard to such removals, on the ground that the intermediate goods are exempted and they are to be treated as final products cleared without payment of duty availing exemption, it would lead to an anomalous position namely where basic input is used in the common and same intermediate inputs (referred to in this notification as inputs) and captively used in final products cleared on payment of duty, credit can be availed by applying Rule 57D, but where it is so used in another unit of the same manufacturer, credit is to be denied, notwithstanding the fact that corelation of the basic inputs right from stage one upto the final product is established as envisaged in the said notification. Hence we felt that there is a patent ambiguity in such an interpretation held by the department and applying the principle enunciated by Lord Denning [approved and adopted by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 (SC) 1846 and AIR 1986 (SC) 1499] we hold that Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs cannot be denied even in regard to inter-plant removals of intermediate inputs.
8.4 We are aware that the Apex Court have also held that fiscal statutes are to be interpreted strictly and there is no case for intendment being brought in for interpretation of fiscal statutes. We are also aware of the judgments that no word can be supplemented or deleted, while interpreting the fiscal statutes. The Supreme Court have also held in a recent judgment that benefit of ambiguity in an exemption should go to the revenue.
8.5 On the otherside, the Apex Court themselves have held that where there is an apparent ambiguity, it is permissible for the courts to interpret the statute in a manner of keeping with the objective and spirit of the law. Now the question before us is which of the approach laid down by the Apex Court should be adopted. We took the view based on the principles set out by Lord Denning approvingly adopted by the Supreme Court for the following reasons : 8.5.1 Unlike a taxing provision of the statute or an exemption notification conferring benefit on some, Modvat scheme is a benevolent scheme formulated with a view to avert the cascading effect of input taxation and the object is to recover duty only at the final stage, in respect of all the assessees and not confined to some selected few.
Viewed in this context, when there is an apparent ambiguity in the provisions, while applying Rule 57C to Notification 271/86, we feel that Lord Denning's observations approved by the Apex Court would seem more applicable. In our view in a provision conferring a facility to all the assessees, if certain wrinkles are noticed in the form of ambiguities, there is a need to iron it out so as to ensure accrual of the substantive benefit of the scheme to all.
8.5.2 Rule 57C seeks to deny credit of duty on inputs, if such inputs are used in final products, which are exempted from whole of duty or are chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. Here, in so far as Bajaj Tempo is concerned the final product is motor vehicle. It cannot be denied that steel materials (basic inputs) are used in the motor vehicles through the intermediate stage of components. Even in Notification 217/86 such intermediate products are referred to as 'inputs' going into the manufacture of final products to be cleared on payment of duty. Hence to equate such intermediate products as final products cleared from the factory without payment of duty is not apparently correct, because the notification itself calls them 'inputs' and permits their removals for captive use within the same factory or in another unit of the manufacturer by way of removals under bond. Hence such intermediate products removed as inputs to another unit of the same manufacturer are not to be equated as final products exempt from duty. Motor vehicle cleared in the case of Bajaj is the final product. Rule 57C can be attracted, only if such motor vehicle is cleared without payment of duty under an exemption. If such components are cleared to the market as spares, then they could be construed as final product, in which case they are to clear the spares on payment of duty, if they are to avail the modvat benefit on steel materials. But where such components are cleared as inputs (as referred to in the Notification) to another unit of the same manufacturer for further use in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles, motor vehicle only can be construed as final product in the context of the scheme of the notification. Hence, we feel that Rule 57C would not be attracted in such a case.
8.5.3 Coming to applicability of Rule 57D, though clause (a) of the proviso to the Rule 57D(2) contemplates usage of intermediate products within the factory of production in the manufacture of dutiable final product, Notification 217/86 envisages such a compliance by prescribing in-bond movement under Chapter X procedure, in respect of such intermediate products involved in inter-plant transfers of the same manufacturer, where corelation of the input with the final product is sought to be established from stage one either in the same unit or in more than one unit of the same manufacturer.
8.5.4 We are still unable to persuade ourselves to view the Notification 217/86 on the same footing as Notification 217/85, referred to by the Ld. SDR. Notification 217/85 grants exemption to parts of 1C engine used in the manufacture of IC engines in the same factory or in any other factory (Not necessarily belonging to the same manufacturer) and where such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production of such parts Chapter X procedure is prescribed. We have dealt with this aspect in para 7.3 of our order. We would like to add that Notification 217/85 is not fashioned on the basis of Modvat scheme. It is not for averring payment of duty at the intermediate stage in the line of manufacture of I.C. engines of the same manufacturer. It is with a view to give Complete exemption to such parts, irrespective of the fact whether I.C. engine is cleared on payment of duty or exempted. It is to be taken judicial notice of the fact that at present most of the I.C. engines for irrigation purposes are exempted and only automobile engines are chargeable to duty. Hence all parts of I.C. engines irrespective of whether they are used in the manufacture of exempted or dutiable engines or whether they are used in the units belonging to others are given exemption under Notification 217/85. Prescription of Chapter X procedure is only with a view to ensure that exemption is not availed of in respect of spares cleared as such to the market or for any other use. In other words Notification 217/85 is meant for totally remitting the duty payable on parts of I.C.engines, so long as they are established to have been used in the manufacture of I.C. engines. Hence the view taken by us in interpreting the provisions of Rule 57C in the context of such a notification is not applicable in regard to Notification 217/86, which is esoteric to Modvat scheme and is entirely based on that scheme. Hence the decision of the Larger Bench in Kirloskar Oil Engines case is not applicable in this context. It appears that there is a misconception on this, because Notification involved in Kirloskar Oil Engines was also numbered 217, but it relates to 1985 whereas Modvat notification now under reference is 217/86.
8.5.5 Another argument of the ld. DR is that removals to 100% E.O.U.and Free Trade Zone are specifically excluded from operation of Rule 57C and no such exemption is available as here.
Removals to 100% E.O.U. and Export Processing Zones in terms of an exemption notification have been specifically provided as exceptions in Rule 57C because they grant exemption to removals for 100% E.O.U. or Export Oriented Units, irrespective of whether final products manufactured out of such inputs in the export oriented units are to suffer duty or not. Hence such removals are without payment of duty on an exemption notification, irrespective of whether the final products manufactured therefrom suffer duty or not. Hence they had to be provided for as exceptions in Rule 57C because of the long standing policy considerations that such duty burden on inputs should not be loaded on the export goods. It has to be pointed out that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in a recent case of Indian Aluminium have held that such an amendment relating to 100% E.O.U. and Free Trade Zone made in the Notification 217/86 is clarificatory - vide 1995 (9) RLT 105 CEGAT B. We, on the other hand, felt that on such exception even by clarification is called for in regard to Notification 217/86 or Rule 57C in regard to interplant removals of intermediate products under Notification No. 217/86, for the above reasons.
8.5.6 We also take note of the recent Trade Notice No. 13-CE (Mis 13) 95, dated 10-2-1995 of the Department giving instructions to the trade on Modvat provisions - We reproduce below the relevant extracts of the said Trade Notice - "For clearance of goods under Notification 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 as amended by Notification 97/89 (which provides for clearances of goods from one plant of the same manufacturer to another plant of the same manufacturer without payment of duty), no credit on inputs can be granted, as such inputs are used in the exempted products cleared under Chapter X procedure. In such a situation, duty on such intermediate products can be paid foregoing the exemption and Modvat credit taken on inputs can be availed for payment of duty on such intermediate products without following Ch. X procedure." This Departmental Trade Notice makes it clear that the Dept. is not interested in disturbing the chain of availability of credit from stage one of basic inputs upto final product. However, the above Trade Notice appears to deny a procedural relief given by the Govt. by the amending Notification No. 97/89 issued on representation of the trade. Now the assessees are being directed to pay duty at each intermediate stage involving interplant transfers, foregoing the exemption. We feel that what is sought to be extended by one hand by the Govt. is snatched away by the other hand in the form of Trade Notice by the executive. Be that as it may, we are now convinced that even if the reference application from the Revenue is ultimately held in their favour, by the High Court, there can be no gain in revenue. As on date the respondents can opt to pay duty on the intermediate goods cleared already under Chapter X Procedure as per the above Trade Notice and once they pay duty, Modvat credit, on basic inputs (sought to be denied) would get restored. Duty paid on intermediate products would be eligible as credit at the other unit under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, read with this trade notice. All these exercises would generate only paper work without any commensurate revenue gain apart from expenditure of considerable time of the judicial forums in resolving this legal point. However, we agree that whether there is a revenue angle or not, we are to look into the questions posed before us only from the point of law. But we cannot ignore the fact that this legal process, even when carried to its logical conclusion, resulting in success to the Department, would not result in any revenue gain, excepting payment of duty in one unit and taking it as credit in other unit.
9.1 Whatever be our feelings or views, we have already taken the final decision. Now the stage is over for holding that only our views on a point of law should hold good, while considering a reference application. Under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, the prerogative for giving a final verdict on a point of law is vested with the High Court. For this purpose, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the point raised is on the interpretation of law as held by the Tribunal and there is a scope for a different view on that legal point, other than the one adopted by the Tribunal. If both are satisfied and the legal point is not already settled by the High Court or Supreme Court by a direct decision, we are duty bound to make the reference.
9.2 On this aspect, after hearing both sides, we find that the counsels for the respondents do not dispute that the issue was decided by the Tribunal in their favour holding an interpretation on the applicability of Rule 57C in the context of Notification 217/86 and it is a point of law. On this point of law, it was brought to our notice that North Regional Bench of the Tribunal have taken a prima facie view disagreeing with our views, in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 111 (Tribunal) : 1995 (9) RLT 164 (CEGAT - NRB). It was therefore pleaded that since another bench of the Tribunal have not prima facie agreed with our view on the same point of law, reference is called for.
9.3 We have perused the above decision of N.R.B. in Escorts case. The Ld. members of N.R.B. do not prima facie seem to have approved our approach in taking recourse to the observations of Lord Denning adopted by the Supreme Court in two cases. They feel that the two decisions of the Supreme Court are distinguishable from the present case. The relevant observations of N.R.B. are reproduced below : 10. These cases, however, in our view, are distinguishable. In case of Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya Dhankar and Anr. -AIR 1992 SC 1846, the issue involved was computation of property tax and concerned interpretation of expression "annual letting value of building and land not exceeding Rs. 1800/-". It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that aggregation of annual letting value of all buildings owned by a single individual could be applied only for exemption and not for taxation.
Since the unit of tax is a building (property) and not a person.
Negativing this view, the Hon'able Supreme Court held that even though there is no provision for taxation of a building of which the annual letting value is upto Rs. 1800/- but when the aggregation of annual letting value of all buildings and land is permitted, then, all such buildings and lands have to be taken as a one unit for purposes of taxation, since any other construction would render the proviso negative and defeat the object of the Act. The Legislature could not have intended that all buildings or lands owned by a single individual should get exemption from taxation even if their total letting value exceeds rupees eighteen hundred.Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and Ors. - AIR 1986 SC 1499. This case relates to Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 where it was held that requirement of notice of sub-tenancy may be evidenced by a single document and in that context the Court observed that to avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word, if necessary.
11. The two cases are therefore, in our view distinguishable. Denial of Mod-vat credit in case of inputs used in the manufacture of goods declared as final goods which are removed under exemption without payment of duty does not defeat the object of Modvat Scheme nor does it make the scheme meaningless but on the other hand only advances the object of the Act, that is to give relief to the extent of duty paid on inputs for paying duty on final products. When no duty is payable no relief can be given.
9.4 However, we observe with due respect to our Ld. brothers in N.R.B.that our taking recourse to the observations of Lord Denning approved by the Supreme Court in the two cases reported in AIR 1992 (SC) 1846 and AIR 1986 (SC) 1499 is not on the ground that Rule 57C denying credit in respect of exempted products would frustrate the Modvat schemes nor on the ground that it would render the scheme meaningless.
Our decision was on the applicability of Rules 57C and 57D in the context of Notification 217/86, which is esoteric to the Modvat scheme and based entirely on Modvat scheme. When such a Notification is read in the context of Rule 57C, there was an apparent ambiguity having practically no revenue implications. Hence we felt that when the entire fabric of Modvat scheme remains intact without altering any material, out of which Modvat scheme is woven, such an apparent ambiguity has to be ironed out by a proper interpretation. This was the principle suggested by Lord Denning and approved by the Supreme Court in the above two cases. Moreover, as already observed by us, Modvat is benevolent scheme for averting payment of duty at the intermediate stage and Notification 217/86 is also based entirely on the same concept and fashioned on Modvat scheme. Thus, we wonder whether we do not have the liberty of ironing out the creases, which job the executive have refused to do.
9.5 At this juncture, we are also to observe that there are many judgments of this Tribunal as well of the High Courts, where a consistent approach is discernable, holding the view that where there is a substantial compliance with the requirements of Modvat scheme, credit should not be denied on mere technicalities. Going by the tenor of these judgments in these cases before us, where we found that the substantive requirement of duty paid inputs being used in the manufacture of duty paid final products, whether in the same factory or in another unit of the same manufacturer, is sought to be achieved in the scheme of Notification 217/86 itself and when it is not disputed that the final product turned out of intermediate inputs cleared in bond for use in their manufacture, are cleared on payment of duty, can we be justified in ignoring this substantive compliance and deny the credit, merely based on a rigid and literal reading of Rule 57G de hors the substance of Notification 217/86 and its objective? This is a question which does not appear to have been considered in the prima facie view of the North Regional Bench.
9.6 Be that as it may, it is not for us to say which approach should be adopted on the manner of interpretation on a point of law. The prerogative of the final say vests with the High Court. Since this is a point of law, on which the ld. Members of North Regional Bench do not share our views, a reference to the High Court as required under Section 35G of the Central Excises Act is called for. Hence we allow both the reference applications from the Revenue.
10. Before setting out the statements of facts and the questions for reference, both the sides are required to be heard and finally decided on the draft statement and questions to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court. Hence this draft may be circulated to both the sides and a suitable date may be communicated by the Registry before finalising the draft and the questions of law to be referred to the High Court.
Sd/- Sd/- 11. In pursuance of the aforesaid draft order both the matters were listed for hearing to-day i.e. on 19-10-1995. Both the sides agreed to the statement of facts as contained in the draft and after considering the questions posed by them, following questions are framed and referred to the High Court for consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in holding that Modvat credit of duty paid on basic inputs used in the intermediate product (intermediates inputs) cannot be denied by applying Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules/ 1944, in respect of removal of inputs from one factory to another under the provisions of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. as amended by Notn. No. 97/89-C.E. by following Chapter X Procedure of the Central Excise Rules, under which payment of duty on the ultimate final product is ensured? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 57C has to be strictly construed disregarding the fact that Notn. No. 217/86 is essentially based on Modvat scheme and the amendment carried out by way of Notification No. 97/89-C.E. was to facilitate such removals from one factory to another of the same manufacturer without payment of duty, so long as it is ensured that the ultimate final products pay duty? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, removals under Norn. No. 217/85-C.E. can be construed to be analogous to the removals of intermediate inputs under Notn. No. 217/86-C.E., for applying the ratio of the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Kirloskar Oil Engines reported in 1995 (73) E.L.T. 835 (Tribunal).