1992 (11) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 224B for authentication of extra copies of Gate Passes without payment of fee.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta involved the issue of whether a fee of Rs. 30/- per copy should be paid for the authentication of extra copies of Gate Passes as per Rule 224B. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II contended that the fee was required to prevent abuse of the system where applicants may request authentication of multiple copies. On the other hand, the respondents argued that Rule 224B did not apply to preauthentication of extra copies of Gate Passes, as these were not duplicate copies of documents issued by the department. They clarified that the extra copies were needed for supply to government departments and required preauthentication initials of the Central Excise Officer. The respondents also cited a Trade Notice indicating that no fee should be charged for certified copies of documents prepared by licensees themselves.

The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and analyzed Rule 224B, which pertains to the issuance of duplicate copies of documents already issued by the department. It was noted that the blank Gate Pass leaves in a Gate Book were not documents at the time of preauthentication and that the departmental officer's role was limited to the initial preauthentication of the blank form. The Tribunal concluded that the preparation of Gate Passes was done by the manufacturer and did not fall within the scope of Rule 224B, as it did not involve duplicate copies of previously issued documents.

Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a Trade Notice issued by the Belgaum Collectorate, which clarified that no fee should be charged for certified copies of documents prepared by licensees themselves, such as the Gate Passes in this case. The Tribunal found that the respondents only required preauthentication of extra blank Gate Passes, not certified copies, and therefore, Rule 224B did not apply. Consequently, the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise was dismissed.

Regarding the cross-application filed by the respondents, which was registered as a cross-objection, the Tribunal noted that it did not seek any relief against the impugned order but only sought the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the Order-in-Original. As a result, the cross-objection was deemed misconceived and dismissed.