9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignees as per the Gate Passes, nor were they endorsed in their favour is not valid. The goods had been consigned directly from the factory of manufacture thereof to their factory and their name and address was shown in the Gate Passes. Since they had placed the order through the authorised selling agents their names had been mentioned along with their own name. As the Assistant Collector had raised an objection initially about the Gate Passes not having been endorsed in their favour, they got the same done. Even this had not been found sufficient, holding that the endorsement had been obtained after taking Modvat credit. The inputs had been received in all these cases by them directly from the source factory. Only in two of the five Gate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received the goods without cover of proper Gate Passes, showing their name as the consignees and hence the orders of the authorities below are proper and correct. 4. We had considered the submissions made by both the sides. We have gone through the appeal and the impugned orders. The credit sought had been denied only on the ground that the name of the appellants had not been shown as the consignees in the Gate Passes covering the goods. There is no other finding to the effect that the goods had not been received by them or that the Gate Passes did not cover the goods themselves. The appellants have clarified that the goods had been directly consigned to them from the factories of the concerned manufacturers. The Purchase Orders placed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stating that the entire material of the Gate Pass had been diverted to them. In the circumstances of the cases, no objection can be taken that the endorsement had been obtained after receipt of the goods. The endorsement had been obtained to meet the requirement of the Department which had objected to the Gate Passes as originally presented. Only in the case of goods covered by Gate Pass No. 142, we find that the consignee s name and address refers to some other party and the appellants name does not Figure at all. Here it was stated during the arguments that this Gate Pass was got endorsed by the consignees referred to therein in their favour. But such an endorsement does not appear in the copy shown to us. This will require verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onths from the date of taking the credit, it is time-barred as per the amended provisions of Rule 57-I(l)(i). No suppression or wilful misstatement is involved nor has been alleged. This is however a secondary issue as we are allowing the appeal on merits. In the case of goods covered by Gate Pass No. 142, the endorsement in favour of the appellants is not available in the copy of the Gate Pass as only the front page thereof has been copied out. In the other Gate Passes, the endorsement by the Agents or other party, whose name appeared as consignee had been made on the reverse side of the Gate Passes. This endorsement in the said Gate Pass may be seen by the Assistant Collector to whom we remand the matter for verification. The objection th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
