TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustries under which the goods were sold by them to M/s. Arizone Printers. The appellants have cited the instructions issued under Trade Notice No. 89/92, in support of their claim, under this trade notice in case the entire consignment covered by a gate pass issued by a manufacturer is sold as such by a first purchaser to another, the Modvat credit was allowed subject to the due endorsement on the gate pass regarding the transfer of the goods under the gate pass to the second buyer. 2. The ld. Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the North Regional Bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances has allowed the benefit of the Modvat credit and referred us to the following cases: 1995 (78) E.L.T. 505 - Delhi Bottling Co. v. CCE, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the inputs must be received under the cover of documents evidencing payment of duty . In the instant case, the glass bottles had been initially delivered by the manufacturer thereof to a printer concerned and the said printer had been shown as the consignee in the gate pass. The printers of glass bottles had opened the packages and carried out printing on the bottles and thereafter had supplied the bottles to the appellants under the cover of the same original gate passes duly endorsed in the name of the appellants. There is no dispute that the glass bottles were received in full as per the invoices. Therefore, the substantive requirement of the inputs being duty paid in character has been complied with. Our attention has also been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were cleared on job work basis after printing were received back under the endorsed gate pass. He pleaded in the present case the position is quite different. The appellants did not buy the bottles from the manufacturers of bottles as the same were sold to Arizone Printers and thereafter they purchased the same from Arizone printers after the same were printed. He pleaded that the M/s. Arizone Printers were not under any obligation to maintain any records of the goods purchased and sold after printing and the authorities had no control over the M/s. Arizone Printers. 5. We have considered the pleas made by both sides. We observe that availability of Modvat credit is contingent upon fulfilment of certain conditions. One of the conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once more provided the entire goods covered by the GP1 are transferred to the third party in original packing. However, no subsidiary gate pass can be issued on such GP1 which have been endorsed up to two times. 3. It has also been decided that in case part supplies are made from consignment covered under a GP1 and no subsidiary gate pass has been issued for such supplies, then the said GP1 can be endorsed to the buyer of rest of the consignment covered by the said GP1 specifying the quantity of material sold and duty involved on such part supply to Modvat buyer. 6. The cases relied upon by the ld. Advocate for the appellants refer to this trade notice only. In our humble view the facts of the case in question and even in the case of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er getting the particulars regarding consignment verified with reference to the gate pass if such a course had been prescribed under Rule 57G. This admittedly had not been done. We observe that a strict view has to be taken in regard to the documents under the cover of which the goods are brought in a factory for Modvat purposes. The documents as have been prescribed are with a view to ensure that duty paid goods alone are received in the factory and it is obligatory that statutory documents as set out under Rule 57G alone are taken into consideration for the purpose of Modvat Credit. There is possibility of misuse in case consignee on their own are allowed to endorse the gate pass after the goods have been cleared from the factory and rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies regarding the verification that is possible and the possibilities of evasion. Any relaxation in respect of the prescribed documents in our view cannot be given by another statutory authority. In our view of the documents produced as in the present case is not covered by the notification issued under Rule 57G by the Board . In the present case, we had asked the ld. Advocate to indicate the price at which M/s. Arizone Printers purchased the goods and the price at which they sold the same. The purchased price according to him was Rs. 1700/- per 1000 bottles and sale price was Rs. 3,608/- per thousand bottles. In our view while printing as done may not be process of manufacture, there appears to be transformation in the nature of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
