1996 (3) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rgents they purchased certain inputs and the inputs were supplied by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd., Sahibabad; the appellants submitted before the lower authorities that gate pass was covering 6000 kgs. of the inputs and it was mutually agreed that these will be supplied in 3 instalments of 2000 kgs. each. It was submitted by the appellants that the first 2000 kgs. of goods were entered in RG 23A Part I but no credit at the time of receipt of these goods was taken; that with the third consignment of 2000 kgs. relevant gate pass was received. On the back of this gate pass M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. had certified that 2 earlier consignments sent under the challans were covered by this gate pass. The Assistant Collector while accepting the gate pass for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has held that 6000 kgs of inputs were received by the appellants and were covered by the gate pass but his only argument was that this gate pass should have been supported by subsidiary gate pass issued by the stock holder at Sahibabad. The learned Counsel submitted that substantive benefit should not be denied if there is technical lapse or venial breach. He referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of National Industries reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal) = 1992 (42) ECR 211; that this Tribunal had held that having regard to the findings of the Additional Collector that there was substantive compliance of the provisions of the modvat scheme by the appellants and no duty was recoverable we are inclined to agree with t....