ORDER According to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, and this cannot be seriously disputed by the appellant, the point in issue in the present appeals is covered by the principle enunciated by this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries1. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, brings to our notice an order of this Court reported in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries2 - Civil Appeal No. 7937/1995 in which it is observed that there appears to be a conflict between the decisions of this Court in Usha Martin Industries (supra) and Motiram Tolaram and Another v. Union of India and Another3. 2. As we see it, there does not appear to be any conflict and in Motiram Tolaram s case (supra) the decision in Usha Martin Industries case (supra) was explained and distinguished in paragraph 12 of the judgment at page 380 of SCC. However, in view of the fact that in Dhiren Chemical Industries case (Civil Appeal No. 7937/1995), a Bench of this Court has directed the matter to be referred to a Constitution Bench, we direct that these appeals be also listed for hearing along with Dhiren Chemical Industries case. Appeals disposed of accordingly. ***************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Collector of Central Excise v. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co., 2001(4) Supreme 472 : 2001 (129) ELT 293 : 2001 (96) ECR 477 00024