9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant. Shri S.N. Ghosh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Following are the relevant facts :- 1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturers of batteries. They got Lead as an input from the local godown at Calcutta of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Normally, they are buying the full consignments received by the local godown of M/s. H.Z.L. from their factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsporters to the personnel at godown because of loss in transit by the transporters. Consequently, they could not give the appellants the endorsed copies of the gate passes. However, M/s. H.Z.L. godown at Calcutta gave them two certificates dated 24-4-1993 in respect of payment of duty on the two consignments giving the reference to the gate pass Nos. 501 and 502, dated 21-12-1992 to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, dated 21-12-1992. Those consignments came to the local godown at Calcutta and the godown people had sent those consignments and the certificates dated 24-4-1993 had been given regarding payment of duty on the two consignments under the aforesaid two gate passes. Endorsed gate passes could not be given as was the previous practice because of loss of the said gate passes during the course of tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected. For this proposition, he relies on the Tribunal's judgments in the case of Chetna Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 344 (WRB) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Heavy Engineering Corporation reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 531 respectively. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We observe from the evidence a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
