1995 (3) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....90 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise MOD III, New Delhi insofar as the latter authority had held them to be ineligible for Modvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 1,91,490.24 on glass bottles manufactured by M/s. J.G. Glass Limited but received by them (appellants) from M/s. Arizona Printers and Packers (P) Limited. It was denied on the ground of absence of any endorsement on the Gate Pass or of a subsidiary Gate Pass and also on the ground that the bottles were not received in their original packing. 2. In the appeal it has been urged that Arizona Printers & Packers (P) Limited who did the printing on the bottles and supplied them to the appellants as stated in the show cause notice itself had necessarily to unpack the ori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m in the appeal. He pleaded that the appeal be allowed. He stated that he had no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo decision after scrutiny of documents. 4. Heard Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned Senior Departmental Representative. 5. We have considered the submissions. We have taken note of the decision cited. We also find that while arguing their stay petition, a reference was made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Madras Fabricators Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 292. That was a case where the declared inputs were lacquered sheets whereas Modvat credit taken was of the duty paid on tin sheets. These were directly sent for lacquering outside their fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was there in the Madras Fabricators case is not before us now in the present case. As stated above, the declaration under Rule 57G covered glass bottles which is what they received after printing of the names. The adverse decision in question had been taken by the lower authorities on two grounds namely (1) non-endorsement of the Gate Passes or non-production of subsidiary Gate Passes (2) the supply of the goods not in the original packing of the manufacturers of the bottles. As regards the first deficiency, the appellants have enclosed a photocopy of the Gate Pass of J.G. Glass endorsed in favour of the appellants by them. This is found to cover 25000 bottles involving duty of Rs. 9,400/-. The total quantity and duty involved in the matte....