Full Judgment
2. In the aforesaid order passed by this Bench, it was held that the declaration made by the Respondents indicating 'gear box' classifiable under sub-heading 8483.00 would cover the inputs received under gate pass with description 'reduction gear' classified under the same sub-heading. The contention raised in the Reference Application reiterated by the ld. SDR is that 'gear box' and 'reduction gear' are different and 'reduction gear' cannot be said to be covered by the description 'gear box'. Only when the input is specifically covered by the description given in the declaration, Modvat credit can be extended. Hence a point of law has arisen on account of wrong appreciation of factual position. In this context, dictionary meaning in McGraw Hill was also cited.
3. After hearing both the sides, even on seeing the ground of reference, I find that in the case of 'gear box', the speed can be either increased or decreased with reference to the prime mover as per the requirement. In the case of reduction gear it is meant for lowering the output speed. Both are falling under the same tariff heading. In the circumstance, such a declaration was held to be covering the input received under the gate pass. It is not the case of the department that only gear box is covered by Modvat scheme and reduction gear falling under the same heading is not covered by the Notification issued under Rule 57A. In the circumstances, I find that there is no question of law involved in this case. Reference Application is therefore dismissed.