1996 (3) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds GP-1 Endorsement as Valid Duty Document

VEE KAY CHEMICALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

VEE KAY CHEMICALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal) Issues:Validity of GP-1 endorsement for part supply as a duty paying document.Analysis:The appeal challenged an order confirming that GP-1 endorsed twice was not a valid duty paying document. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Potassium Silicate, claimed Modvat credit based on GP-1 for caustic potash endorsed twice. The Departmental Officer noted the second endorsement was for a part supply of goods. The appellants argued citing a Board's Circular that endorsed GP-1 for part supplies without subsidiary gate passes could be valid duty paying documents. The appellants contended that the endorsement specified the quantity of goods supplied and the duty involved, meeting the Circular's requirements. The JDR argued that without proof of subsidiary gate pass issuance, the Circular's conditions were incomplete, suggesting remand for verification.The Tribunal analyzed the Circular's requirements: no subsidiary gate pass issued and quantity and duty indication for part supplies. The Tribunal found no endorsement on the GP-1 regarding subsidiary gate passes, accepting the appellants' claim that none were issued. The second endorsement on GP-1 specified the quantity supplied, fulfilling the duty calculation purpose for ad valorem duty. The Tribunal concluded that both conditions of the Circular were met, rejecting the JDR's remand request for further verification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the endorsed GP-1 for part supply constituted a valid duty paying document, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The appellants were entitled to consequential relief according to the law.