TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paying documents from M/s. Madhya Pradesh Iron Steel Co., Malanpur. The Department alleged that since the amount of duty has not been shown as paid against the relevant column of gate passes, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 8,81,0654/- taken by them during the period June 1992 to July 1992 should not be disallowed and why the amount utilised should not be recovered from them. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellants submitted that the forwarding gate passes indicated the particulars of the gate passes under which duty was paid; that the supplier of the inputs had obtained permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, is not covered by the instruction referred to by the ld. Advocate and since the inputs were not received, a document prescribed as duty paying document by the CBEC under Rule 173G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Modvat credit is not permissible and accordingly rejected the appeal of the appellants and hence the appeal before us. 2. Shri R.C. Gupta, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the limited dispute in the instant case is that the GP1 issued in their name does not show the payment of duty but it gives the reference of the original GP1 under which duty was paid by the manufacturers of wire rods/bars. He submits that Rule 57G(2) speaks of duty paying document as GP1, AR-l, Bill of Entry. He submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants were entitled to taking credit of duty on inputs under the Modvat scheme. The appellants not only produced the GP1 in their name but also the GP1 under which duty was paid on wire rod/bars. In the instant case, the inputs are wire rods/bars. We note that in addition to the GP1 in the name of the appellants, the appellants received the original GP1 under which duty was paid. In the forwarded GP1 in the name of the appellants there was a reference of the earlier GP1. We also note that the supplier of the product to the appellant had permission to receive the duty paid goods in his factory under Rule 173H. We find that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Rules, 1944. In such cases, inputs sent to the original supplier may be subjected at his place to processes covered either by Rule 173H or 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. In the former case (Rule 173H), the re-issue of the goods will be covered by gate pass showing payment of Nil duty and hearing a cross reference to the original Gate Pass. For proper checking of Modvat credits in such cases the following cross-reference on Nil duty Gate Pass I would be necessary :- (a) Original Gate Pass No. Date (b) ECC No. (c) Total duty paid break-up (d) Duty paid through PLA (e) Duty paid through RG 23A Pt. II This cross-reference shall be on the body of the Nil duty GP1 (Preferably on the adverse side) and shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
