9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final products, they procured a number of inputs. They were availing, facility of Modvat credit. Certain inputs were received by the appellants on 7-11-1992 and duty paying document thereof was issued by the Superintedent of Central Excise on 20-11-1992. No doubt, the appellants entered the inputs in RG-23A Part I on 7-11-1992 but they took credit of Modvat duty on the inputs in RG-23A Part II on 9-1-1993 when they actually received the certificate from the supplier. The Department alleged that on the date of receipt of the inputs, the duty paying document was not available with the appellants and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. The second allegation was that there was an endorsement on the back of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed. The learned Counsel also referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Customs v. Amal Rasayan Ltd. reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 446 wherein this Tribunal had held that there is nothing in Rule 57G(2) to indicate that the documents should necessarily accompany the inputs. What it provides is that the inputs received have to be under the cover of duty paying document specified in Rule 57G(2). Significantly, the CBEC has permitted making suitable entry in RG-23A Part I even before documents are received but has specified that Modvat credit could be allowed only after receipt of the duty paying documents. Analysing the ratio of the above judgment cited and relied upon, the learned Counsel submitted that the facts in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he admitted position was that the goods were directly dispatched by the Pharma Chemicals to M/s. J.K. Synthetics. In this certificate, I also observe that the relevant particulars of the gate pass have also been furnished. Thus, the endorsement on the back of the certificate is neither required nor necessary and becomes a superfluous endorsement. Having regard to the fact that this endorsement was neither required and was a superfluous one and also having regard to the fact that the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra is squarely applicable, I hold that the endorsement will not make the certificate an invalid document insofar as taking Modvat credit on the strength of the certificate is concerned. 7. The second issue was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
