1996 (3) TMI 277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and wire. In the instant case, the appellants cleared steel wire for Auto Tyre Beads under gate pass No. 013, dated 5-4-1993. The goods got wet in transit. The goods were cleared for transport to Chandigarh; that on the way, the truck broke down and their goods spoiled [and] they had to receive back all the goods. On receiving the goods, the appellants took modvat credit of duty. The Department alleged that modvat credit of duty was not available to the appellants on the ground that the appellants had not intimated to the Department, the receipt of duty-paid goods back to their factory. 3. Shri R.C. Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the items received back were wires which were declared by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eived by the appellant under cover of gate pass on payment of duty and remelted and used as inputs in the manufacture of final products and modvat credit shall be available to such defective goods being used as inputs. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mullard Tubes Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 342 (Tribunal), the learned Counsel submitted that defective inputs returned to original manufacturer after reversal of modvat credit and some of such defective inputs returned after repair/reprocessing under Rule 173H without payment of duty but under Gate Pass which contained distinct remark and reference to the original duty paid Gate Pass, Modvat credit taken on the basis of such endorsement is va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s was sent to the Department; that no evidence was produced by the appellants in the form of any evidence or notice to the Department that the damaged goods were received back. The learned SDR submitted that most of the decisions cited and relied upon by the appellants pertained to the goods rejected and not the goods damaged in the process and transport and received back. The second point that was brought by the learned SDR was that modvat credit on the G.P. 1 could not be taken by the appellants when the G.P. 1 was not in the name of the appellants, nor did the gate pass contained an endorsement nor were the goods rejected and therefore, there was no question of allowing modvat credit on the strength of such gate pass. He therefore, submi....