1994 (5) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e present Appellants in their factory as inputs for the manufacture of paper. The said decision was taken by the Assistant Collector on the ground that while the Gate Passes covering the goods showed lump Magnesite, the product received was in powder form. The quantity received was also different from what was shown in the relevant gate passes. Because of these reasons he held that there was no correlation between the receipts and the Gate Passes. Further, the material was also not received in original packing. 2. Shri H.K. Ghosh, learned Consultant argued their case during the hearing. He stated that they were asked to show cause why credit should not be disallowed as they had not followed the procedure laid down under Notification No. 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribed differently in the Gate Passes like Carbide Sludge. Even, a difference in the Tariff Classification was not held to be a disqualification. In the present case, the description is calcined magnesite. It will cover all forms of calcined magnesite - whether in lump form or powder form. Therefore, they have a clear case in their favour and the Appeal may be allowed, concluded Shri Ghosh. 3. In his reply, Shri N.K. Mandal, learned Departmental Representative who appeared on behalf of the Respondent Collector stated that Rule 57G declaration should tally with the Gate Pass particulars. That was not satisfied in the present case. What was received by them in their factory was different from what was mentioned in the declaration. Further th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further use in the manufacture of the final products. It has also been permitted by the Government that such inputs, instead of being received first in the factory and then sent out under Rule 57F(2) as above, may be received directly by the job worker where such processing is to be carried out and then sent to the factory. But such job work, which powdering of the material undoubtedly is, should have been reported to the proper Officer and his permission obtained as laid down under Rule 57F(2). But this failure on their part is a condonable lapse, if the receipt of the powdered calcined magnesite in the factory and its utilisation in the manufacture of their final product is capable of being verified from the records maintained by them a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X