9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate passes. These goods were purchased from August to September, 1992. At the time of their receipt, the goods were not inputs in terms of Rule 57A. At a later date, i.e. on 1-3-94 these goods became eligible inputs. 3. On 7-4-94, Gate Pass Nos. 593 and 774 evidencing receipt of these goods were endorsed by the Bombay unit to Jamnagar unit. These goods under these gate passes were received by Jamnagar unit in the first week of April, 1994. This unit had filed a declaration as required under Rule 57G of the Rules earlier i.e. on 16-3-94. The credit of duty paid by these two endorsed gate passes was taken by Jamnagar unit in their Modvat account on 9-4-94. 4. In the same manner, the Bombay unit had received one more consignment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvat credit when the inputs were received much beyond the admissible period of six months from the date of eligibility of the inputs. The Commissioner (A) reflected these sentiments in his order. 7. As regards the eligibility of the endorsed gate passes, I find that the show cause notice does not allege that the document was not sufficient to cover the arrangement so made. Secondly, there is substantial case law to show that gate passes issued prior to 1-4-94 could be endorsed thereafter also provided the credit was taken before 30-6-94 [2001 (42) RLT 475 (Guj.)] CCE v. Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. I further observe that the show cause notice does not cover the Mumbai unit at all but only targets the Jamnagar unit. As far as these endo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... variation in the credit taken by the Jamnagar unit would be effected. But it is improper to reverse the credit taken by the Jamnagar unit on the basis of the valid document on the ground of infirmity in the credit taken by the Mumbai Unit. It is significant that although the show cause notice alleges the scheme as devised by the Mumbai Unit, it does not make them as noticees.
9. The ld. Commissioner in his order described the entire operation as a devious method. The scheme may appear to be so but in the absence of proper allegation being made in the show cause notice, the consequential action of denial of Modvat credit is wrong in law.
10. The appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
