9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt I Register on 28-8-1992. Therefore they approached the suppliers to obtain and sent to them a copy of the gate pass duly attested by the jurisdictional Range Officer. On receipt of this copy the appellants took credit in RG 23A Part II Register on 31-12-1992. The jurisdictional officer of the appellants factory noticed these cases when scrutinising the RT 12 Returns for the month of December, 1992. After issue of a show cause notice the credit was denied by the original authority vide his order dated 20-5-1993 on the observation that in terms of the Board s instructions dated 15-12-1992 attested gate passes were not the valid documents for taking Modvat Credit. This view was upheld by the Collector vide his order dated 23-9-1993. Against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may not override the provisions of the Rule (Even this instruction in question have been withdrawn now.) 3. He again rejected the admissibility of the attested gate passes. The Collector in his order dated 20-2-1996 referred to the Boards Circular No. 40/82, dated 30-11-1982 which dealt with the issue of taking proforma credit on the strength of attested copy of the gate pass and which was made applicable to availment of Modvat credit in 1986 as communicated in Coimbatore Collector s Trade Notice No. 60/86, dated 25-9-1986. He observed that the appellants had not followed the procedure given in the Trade Notice and had not furnished any indemnity bond. He observed that before taking credit on 31-12-1992 the Provisions of Board s Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 871/94-NRB, dated 28-10-1994 in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate. Ld. Advocate further submitted in this case that both the lower authorities had gone beyond the scope of the directions given by the Tribunal. In such cases an adverse view has been taken of such authorities by the Court as in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 231 (Bombay) and in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 493 (Allahabad). 5. Shri Kilania, Ld. JDR arguing on behalf of Revenue reiterated the arguments of the lower authorities. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the side. 7. The Tribunal had remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
