9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. M/s. Prakash Strips Pvt. Limited, Jagadhari have sought reference of a question of law to the Hon ble High Court, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh on the following terms : In view of the fact that there is no statutory requirement in Rule 57G(2) of CE Rules, 1944 that the credit can be taken on the Gate Passes consigned in the name of the Applicants, was the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit. The Tribunal had by the impugned order held that in terms of Proviso to Rule 57G(2) no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under cover of Gate Pass, ARI, Bill of Entry or some other document prescribed by the CBEC. The Tribunal had observed that a very important ingredient of a Gate Pass was the name and address of the consignee. Where credit is taken by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be referred to the Hon ble High Court as a question of law. Shri Agarwal, ld. Counsel also submitted that if the Tribunal was inclined to accept the prayer for referring the question of law to the Hon ble High Court, the Tribunal may also be pleased to grant stay of the recovery of the said amount by the Department. He relied on Tribunal decision in Roxy Enterprises v. Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd parties or persons who were not the actual users of the inputs and this would result in misuse thereof by persons who were not entitled to Modvat scheme. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal had rightly held that where credit is taken on the strength of Gate Passes which do not contain the consignees/assessee s name and address, such a Gate Pass cannot be said to be a proper Gate Pass. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses of Proviso to Rule 57G(2), the contents of the GP 1 should tally with the requirements of the prescribed format envisaged under Rule 57A(1). In the impugned order the Tribunal had only clarified the said position which is implicit in the said provisions. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no question of law requiring reference to the Hon ble High Court has arisen from the Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
