Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. By raising the following question of law, the Reference Case Petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore under section 35H(I) of the Central Excise Act : "Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the inputs used for the manufacture of exempted intermediate product which is ultimately used for the manufacture of dutiable final product and not specified as inputs or final products under the Notification issued under Rule 57A prior to 210. 1994 are eligible to modvat credit" 2. Reference was sought for on the ground that in the decision of CEGAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, 2000 (116) ELT 312, the question discussed was as to whether Modvat credit would be admissible on fuel oils used for generation of electricity as an input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The decision rendered on that facts of that case could not automatically lead to the conclusion that prior to the date specified, the intermediate goods or input or output used for generation of electricity would not be entitled to modvat credit. 3. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. The larger bench decision rendered by the CEGAT, New Delhi in the Ballarpurs case referred to supra has been taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. 3. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. The larger bench decision rendered by the CEGAT, New Delhi in the Ballarpurs case referred to supra has been taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided a batch of cases in Collector of Central Excise v. Solar Chemtech Ltd. (earlier known as Ballarpur Industries Ltd.), 2007 (214) ELT 481 dismissed the appeals filed by the department by observing that "the words in relation to which find place in section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act 1944 have been interpreted to cover processes generating intermediate products and it is in this context that it has been repeatedly held that if manufacture of final product cannot take place without the process in question, then that process is an integral part of activity of manufacture of the final product and therefore, the words in relation to the manufacture have been used to widen and expand the scope, meaning and content of the expression inputs so as to attract goods which do not enter into finished goods", held as follows : ".........The expression "in the manufacture of goods" indicates the use of the input in the manufacture of the final product. The said expression normally covers the entire process of converting raw-materials into finished goods such as caustic soda, cement, etc. However, the matter does not end with the said expression. The expression also covers inputs "used in relation to the manufacture of final products". It is interesting to note that the said expression, namely, "in relation to" also finds place in the extended definition of the word "manufacture" in section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the said Act). It is for this reason that this Court has repeatedly held that the expression "in relation to" must be given a wide connotation. The Explanation to Rule 57A shows an inclusive definition of the word "inputs". Therefore, that is a dichotomy between inputs used in the manufacture of the final product and inputs used in relation to the manufacture of final products. The department gave a narrow meaning to the word used in Rule 57A. The Explanation to Rule 57A shows an inclusive definition of the word "inputs". Therefore, that is a dichotomy between inputs used in the manufacture of the final product and inputs used in relation to the manufacture of final products. The department gave a narrow meaning to the word used in Rule 57A. The Department would have been right in saying that the input must be raw-material consumed in the manufacture of final product, however, in the present case, as stated above, the expression used in Rule 57A uses the words "in relation to the manufacture of final products". The words "in relation to" which find place in section 2(f) of the said Act has been interpreted by this Court to cover processes generating intermediate products and it is in this context that it has been repeatedly held by this court that if manufacture of final product cannot take place without the process in question then that process is an integral part of the activity of manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the words "in relation to the manufacture" have been used to widen and expand the scope, meaning and content of the expression "inputs" so as to attract goods which do not enter into finished goods. In the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and another, AIR 1965 SC 1310 , this Court has held that Rule 57A refers to inputs which are not only goods used in the manufacture of final products but also goods used in relation to the manufacture of final products. Where raw-material is used in the manufacture of final product it is an input used in the manufacture of final product. However the doubt may arise only in regard to use of some articles not in the mainstream of manufacturing process but something which is used for rendering final product marketable or something used otherwise in assisting the process of manufacture. This doubt is set at rest by use of the words "used in relation to manufacture". 5. As the issue is now settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Solaris Chemtech Ltd., cited supra, there is no need for this Court to direct the Tribunal to state a case. The reference case petition is dismissed. No costs.