TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed assailing the order-in-appeal wherein the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order-in-original holding that GP-1 endorsed twice was not a valid duty paying document. 2. The appellants, in the instant case, are engaged in the manufacture of Potassium Silicate. During the course of a scrutiny of the RT-12 returns of the appellants, it was noticed that the appellants had taken Modvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard that in case part supplies are made from consignment covered under a GP 1 and no subsidiary gate pass has been issued for such supplies, then the said GP 1 can be endorsed to the buyer of rest of the consignment covered by the said GP 1 specifying the quantity of material sold and duty involved on such part supply to Modvat buyer. He submitted that a look at GP-1 will show that there is no en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued on the strength of the gate pass relied upon by the appellants. He submitted that in the absence of this proof, the other direction of the Board cannot be complete. He therefore, submitted that it would be better if the case is remanded to the lower authorities for verification. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. I have also gone through the Circular issued by the Board referred to and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular is that the quantity supplied in part should be mentioned in the endorsement. I find that the 2nd endorsement on the back of the GP-1 clearly states what quantity of the input was supplied to the appellants. I agree that there was a requirement of indicating the quantum of duty involved on the part supply of the goods. I find that the duty is ad valorem. The total quantity covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
