1997 (1) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification No. 15/94 dated 30-4-1994 gate passes were not the valid duty paying documents for the purpose of availing such credit. 3. The Collector (Appeals) has also confirmed the order and has referred to the Notification No. 16/94 in this regard. 4. It was his contention that from the photocopies of the gate passes in question it would be seen that they are in the prescribed form and bear the stamp of the Range Superintendent of Central Excise. The entire consignment was in original packing and had been received by the appellant by way of endorsement. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the duty in question has been paid and therefore the goods are duty paid in character. There is also no dispute that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mentions Rule 52A (as it stood before 1-4-1994) and the gate pass issued under Rule 52A (as it stood before 1-4-1994) i.e. in other words such gate passes were also recognised duty paying documents even under Notification No. 16/94. 10. These serial numbers do not mention date of the gate pass. Sr. No. 12 specifically refers to Rule 52A as it stood before the amendment. In these circumstances, it was his request that the Modvat credit which has been taken ought not to have been disallowed. 11. It was also his submission that the ld. Addl. Collector and the Collector (Appeals) have not taken into account Rule 52A as it stood before the amendment and the explanation to Rule 52A as it stood before and after its amendment, but ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scribed form and bear the stamp of Range Superintendent of Central Excise and that the entire consignment was in original packing and had been received by the appellants by way of endorsement. Since none of the above averments of the appellants have been either contradicted or shown to be wrong it is evident that there has been a substantive compliance with the provisions and therefore there was no reason to deny the benefit particularly when even Notification No. 15/94 prescribes the invoices issued by a manufacturer from his factory or a wholesale distributor/dealer who has bought the goods from the manufacturer as a valid document and Notification No. 16/94 also mentions that gate passes issued under Rule 52 as it stood before 1-4-199....