9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), dated 30.3.1994 and would consequently become eligible documents for taking credit under the Modvat scheme.' 2. We have heard Ms. P. J. Davawala, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the department and Mr. P. M. Dave for the respondent in CECGA No. 16 of 2000. We have also heard Mr. B. I. Mehta, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the department in the other two applications. 3. The notification which is required to be interpreted reads as under :- 'Modvat - Procedures to be observed by the manufacturer'(Add on page 6.108 of Central Excise Manual 1994-95) 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby prescribes the documents specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an endorsement on the gate pass issued by the manufacturer of the input. The department did not have any objection to this benefit being granted when the gate pass was issued and endorsed upto two times as per the Circulars dated 17.4.1989 and 9.4.1990. However, by notification dated 30.3.1994 the system of gate pass has been done away with and invoices issued by the manufacturer of the input are considered to be valid documents for getting the benefit of the modvat credit. The notification dated 30.3.1994 provides for a transition period upto 30.6.1994 permitting Modvat credit being granted on the basis of gate passes issued prior to 30.3.1994. The notification specifically provides that the documents specified in column (3) i.e. 'en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments prescribed for the purpose of availing of the benefit under the Modvat scheme. The fact that the rule making authority also permitted the concerned parties to take benefit of the scheme on or before 30.6.1994, in our view, substantiates the case of the respondent assessees that it was open to the assessees to get the benefit of the gate pass which was endorsed after 1.4.1994 but before 30.6.1994. 10. The learned counsel for the department, however, urge that this very question has been referred by the Delhi Bench and Bombay Bench of the CEGAT to the jurisdictional High Courts. 11. The orders relied upon are only orders of the Tribunal. There is no decision of any other High Court taking a contrary view. Otherwise also, consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
