2000 (7) TMI 722 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57G(4) regarding admissibility of attested copies of gate passes for Modvat credit.
2. Impact of the amendment dated 1-2-1990 on Board's Orders dated 30-12-1982 and 29-10-1986.
3. Requirement of original documents for Modvat credit post-amendment of Rule 57G(4).
4. Validity of Assistant Commissioner's order within the scope of show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The Reference Application questioned the acceptance of attested copies of gate passes for Modvat credit under Rule 57G(4). The Tribunal relied on a previous decision and denied the credit due to the amended rule requiring original documents. The appellant argued that CBEC Circular allowed attested copies as eligible documents, satisfying the requirements. The judge found merit in the argument, noting that CBEC Circular added to the list of eligible documents, thus referring the matter to the High Court.

2. The impact of the 1990 amendment on Board's Orders from 1982 and 1986 was contested. The appellant claimed that the amendment did not nullify the earlier orders, emphasizing that the Circular allowed attested copies. The Respondent argued that the Circular did not introduce new eligible documents but provided a procedure for lost originals. The judge acknowledged the Circular's intent to facilitate credit in such cases, supporting the appellant's stance.

3. The requirement of original documents for Modvat credit post-amendment was a crucial issue. The appellant contended that the Circular prescribed attested copies as eligible, meeting the CBEC's requirements. The Respondent argued against considering attested copies as new eligible documents. The judge, after reviewing the Circular, acknowledged the addition of attested copies to the list of eligible documents, supporting the appellant's position.

4. The validity of the Assistant Commissioner's order within the show cause notice's scope was challenged. The appellant argued that the order was flawed, while the Respondent defended its legality. The judge found questions of law in the impugned order, leading to the Reference Application's approval for the High Court's opinion under Rule 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.