TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n endorsed subsidiary gate passes. The Department sought to deny the credit on the ground that such subsidiary gate passes endorsed twice were not valid documents for taking credit under the Rules, whereas the Appellants claim that the subsidiary Gate Passes were issued in their name even to begin with. It was alleged that the appellants, M/s. Simplex Engg. & Foundary Works Ltd. Unit II, Bhilai had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 69,593/- on subsidiary Gate Passes issued by M/s. Esab India Ltd., Jamshedpur. By show cause notice dated 26-11-1993, Department alleged that the credit is inadmissible since the Gate Passes were subsidiary and were endorsed twice and therefore not valid duty paying documents under Rule 57G. 3. Ld. Counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had observed that since the name and address of the appellants was clearly shown in the gate passes, inclusion of the names of another consignee was not material and there was no need to insist on a fresh endorsement. The Tribunal had observed that there was nothing in the rules or in the procedure laid down by the Government that Modvat credit cannot be granted on endorsed gate passes. In a case of the type before the Tribunal it was observed that this was not a case where even endorsements was called for. The Tribunal observed that "infact it could even be stated such endorsement in favour of the appellant was already there when gate passes were originally issued. The officers had originally found the availment of Modvat credit by the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....902] in which the Tribunal has taken the view that subsidiary gate passes without endorsement would not be valid duty paying documents and credit will not be available on such endorsed subsidiary gate passes. I find that the facts of the said case were different from the factual position in the instant case. I also find that the specific point raised in this appeal has not been fully discussed in the said decision of the Tribunal. 6. I have considered that the submissions and have perused the records and the case law. I observe from the subsidiary gate passes filed at Annexure F to the appeal papers that the appellants have been shown as original customers in the subsidiary gate passes. M/s. Simplex Sales Agency, Bhilai have been sh....