1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CENTRAL EXCISE REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2000. M/S YAWALKAR PESTICIDES PRVT. LTD. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S. M. Puranik, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. K. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General for respondents. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 10th AUGUST, 2009. 1. The applicant moved this application for calling reference under Section 35 G(3) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The application made to CEGAT has been rejected on 30-09-1999. 2. The following has been urged to be the question, which falls for consideration. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules,1944 can be invoked demanding reversal of the Modvat credit correctly availed by the applicant at that point of time even though the ingredients of this 2 Rule are conspicuously absent in the instant case i.e. error, omission or misconstruction, fraud, willful mistake, collusion or suppression of fact or contravention of any of the provisions of Act or Rules made thereunder? 3. Perusal of the impugned order from which the reference was sought clearly shows that the applicant was directed to reverse the MODVAT credit on inputs not used by him & in the hand in his stock on the date on which the exemption became operative. 4. Learned Asstt. Solicitor General contends that the question is misconceived. 5. We do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by the CEGAT in the said order dated 20-11-1999. The question as framed pre- supposes that the MODVAT Credit had been rightly availed. No question was raised in this respect asking CEGAT to refer the same to High Court. 5. The present proceedings are misconceived. No case for calling of 3 reference is made out. Application is therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/