1998 (9) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, by which he has upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division K-I, dated 17-10-1992. In that order the Asstt. Commissioner had confirmed the demand for Rs. 21,313.33 being inadmissible modvat credit availed of by the appellants. The appellants were availing of modvat credit facility and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submitted that in similar circumstances in their own case, this Bench of the Tribunal has held that subsidiary gate pass in favour of the assessee being prescribed document is acceptable document for modvat credit as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 526 (Tribunal). 3. The ld. D.R. Shri K.L. Ramtake, for the department, however, pointed out that this decision is distinguishable because in that case, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annot be brushed aside for the purpose of modvat credit as it is a prescribed document during the material period and that such gate pass was in favour of the appellants. However, the Tribunal observed that all the same, when payment for purchase of goods was made to another party as against the name of the supplier furnished in the subsidiary gate pass, it is incumbent on the part of the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X