1993 (10) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he transport had to be accompanied by the gate pass evidencing payment of duty. According to the petitioner, the goods were despatched along with gate pass, which was entrusted to the transporter. On the allegation that the driver of the transport vehicle has lost the original gate pass, the petitioner applied for a copy of the gate pass. Second respondent refused to issue a copy and issued Trade Notice No. 7/93, dated 27-1-1993, to the effect that no credit would be allowed based on the certified copy or authenticated photo copy of the original G.P. 1 on the ground that the original G.P. 1 is lost; and also no subsidiary G.P. 1 would be issued based on these copies. 2. Petitioner submits that the consignment effected on 29-4-1993 has re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Innayya Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, submits that Rule 57G(4) of the Central Excise Rules, which was enacted with effect from 1-2-1990 by amendment of Rules as per M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 1/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-2-1990, specifically provides that a manufacturer of the final products shall submit to Superintendent of Central Excise the original documents evidencing the payment of duty along with extracts of Parts I and II of R.G. 23A every month and the Superintendent of Central Excise shall, after verifying their genuineness, deface such documents and return the same to the manufacturer. He submits further that duplicate or authenticated copies of gate passes and other similar documents were bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rant of certified copy of gate pass to the petitioner will not assist the consignee, who is the final manufacturer, to obtain credit of duty paid by the petitioner. In this sense, the petitioner has no interest at all in the proceedings. The only person, who is likely to be affected, is the consignee. We also find that there is no challenge to the provisions contained in Rule 57G(4) of the Central Excise Rules in the writ petition. Understandably, the petitioner could not have raised a contention like that because he was not concerned directly with the grant or refusal of Modvat credit to the consignee, who is the final manufacturer. The validity of Trade Notice, which is in terms of or in compliance with Rule 57G(4), cannot, therefore, be ....