1998 (8) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal granted on Modvat credit issue, Commissioner to reexamine with Departmental verification

LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA

LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 102 (Tribunal) Issues:Whether Modvat credit can be taken on a gate pass endorsed thrice based on Board instructions.Analysis:The appeal addressed the issue of whether the appellant could claim Modvat credit on a gate pass endorsed thrice, contrary to the Board's instructions allowing only two endorsements. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions supporting their claim, while the Departmental Representative cited conflicting decisions. The Tribunal analyzed past cases, such as SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., and highlighted the administrative nature of the Board's relaxation from one to two endorsements, emphasizing the duty paid nature of goods for credit eligibility. However, the decision in C.C.E. v. Sree Gopalakrishna Polly Industries held that gate passes endorsed thrice were not valid for credit, emphasizing the limitations of the Tribunal's power to specify credit documents beyond those in Rule 57G.The Tribunal also considered the decision in Premier Induction Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, which distinguished between goods in loose packing and original packing. The issue of original packing was raised, with the Departmental Representative questioning whether the goods were in original packing based on the Collector (Appeals) order. However, the endorsement on the gate pass indicated the transfer of the entire quantity, suggesting compliance with original packing requirements.The Tribunal acknowledged the Board's authority to prescribe credit documents but questioned whether a gate pass, a duty-paying document under Rule 57G, loses its status when endorsed. It argued that the essential identity of the gate pass remains despite endorsements, challenging the notion that each endorsement creates a new document not specified in Rule 57G. The Tribunal assessed the revenue risks associated with multiple endorsements, concluding that the danger of unauthorized credit claims could be mitigated through evidence showing no credit taken by endorsing parties.In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Commissioner was tasked with adjudicating the issue after granting the appellant three months to provide evidence demonstrating the absence of credit claims on endorsed gate passes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of further Departmental inquiry to verify the lack of unauthorized credits, indicating a balanced approach to safeguarding revenue interests while ensuring fair credit practices.