2003 (4) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1st August, 1993 to 31st March, 1994 on the ground that the Circular F. No. 263/47/89-CX. 8, dated 23-10-1989 of the Board had said that the certificates issued by Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL for short) and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO for short) were recognised to be documents specified in Rule 57G on which credit could be taken and certificates issued by no other public undertakings would be valid in respect of goods manufactured or procured by it. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. The order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us. 2. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative. 3. It is nec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in fact the reference cited in the earlier paragraph of the circular. Subsequent to the introduction of the Modvat Scheme, circular dated 10-4-1986 clarified the number of doubts which had been raised with regard to Modvat Scheme. Among the clarifications was one which said that the existing instructions/relaxation relating to supply of goods from stockyards/canalising agencies certifying amount of duty paid would apply for Modvat also. The publication right to Modvat to be issued by the Board in June, 1987 also said, In the case of iron and steel products sold through stockyards, credit can be taken on the basis of a certificate given by the stockyard recording payment of excise duty on the delivery challan. 4. There are some other c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not necessary for duty to be paid by stockyards for integrated steel plant to maintain the record prescribed in the earlier letter of the Board. Paragraph 4 which refers to certificate given by the stockyard obviously the first two types referred to in paragraph 3. The fact that the circular was issued on the basis of representation of two primary procedures of the steel plant does not justify the interpretation that it is limited to the certificate issued by the stockyards of these two primary procedures. That is not, in our opinion, what the circular says. None of the other circulars that we have referred to says or suggests that the earlier instructions should be limited to stockyard of SAIL or TISCO. The clarificatory circular of 23-1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X