9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by the Department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 2-8-1989 allowing Modvat credit availed by the Respondent on Aluminium sheets for a sum of Rs. 30,444.63. 2. Shri J.M. Jeyaseelan, the learned D.R. contended that the goods were not meant for the Respondents but were re-directed partly to the Respondents by Indian Aluminium Company and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion were referable to the inputs in question and in the impugned order the gate passes in question have been accepted by the lower appellate authority without any verification. Since verification of the gate passes vis-a-vis inputs in question would appear to be necessary in the context of the Modvat Scheme, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le that another set of goods which have not suffered duty and which may have emanated from the same manufacturer or a different manufacturer may be sent under the original consignee s gate pass or in other words a duplicate transport may be made against the gate pass in question. In a situation as in the present case the gate passes as evidence of payment of duty in the name of the original consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted by the authorities by prescribing issue of subsidiary gate pass procedure when the original gate pass is in the name of another consignee. This would show that production of original gate pass is not the sine qua non for taking Modvat credit and there can be a situation where evidence other than this can also be accepted. In the present case there is no evidence of issue of any subsidiary g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
