9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp;The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant could take Modvat credit on a gate pass which came in to in after it has been endorsed thrice. Credit has been denied on the ground that the instructions of the Board permitted only two endorsements. 2. Representative of the appellant relies upon the Tribunal decision in SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1990 (45) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It relied upon the decision of that Bench in C.C.E. v. Jai Bhavani Steel Enterprises - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 537. This decision was concerned with whether a subsidiary gate pass which had been endorsed could be valid for taking credit. The appellant had cited before this Tribunal the decision in SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. in support of the contention that as long as duty was paid and the inputs taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods in this case was not in original packing. A sentence in the order of the Collector (Appeals) that Assistant Collector should have intimated in order to verify whether goods were in original packing was cited by the Departmental Representative that they were not. However, the endorsement in the gate pass shows that the entire quantity was transferred. 5. The statement of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of the power contained in Rule 57G. 6. Dangers, if any, to revenue is not significantly greater from the gate passes endorsed twice, than from gate passes endorsed thrice. The only possible danger that the Departmental Representative points out is that each time a gate pass is endorsed there is a possibility that endorsing party might have taken credit. This danger can be avoided if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
