9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. No. 110/83 (H) dated 29-6-83. (5) A. No. 111/83 (H) dated 29-6-83. (6) A. No, 156/83 (H) dated 19-8-83 in the respective appeals. 2. These appeals coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri K. Srinivasamurthy, Advocate for the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order. 3. In these set of appeals the point of law involved is the same; hence they are being disposed of by a common order. 4. In respect of a series of consignments of steel sheets received by the appellants for the manufacture of refrigerators, they claimed the benefit of set of in terms of Rule 56A of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing document or such other documents, as approved by the Board in this behalf, evidencing payment of duty has to be produced at the time of arrival of the goods in the appellants factory and intimate in D3 form to the Department. 6. Before us the Counsel for the appellant referred to the provisions of Rule 56A(3)(i)(b) and pointed out that the gate pass is not the only document to be produced as proof of payment of duty. For the Central Government could relax the provisions of this sub-clause [vide Rule 56A(3)(viii) ]. By Trade Notice No. 267/82, dated 29-12-82 the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, has indicated that when duty paid materials are received without cover of the relevant gate pass or a certificate, the goods may be all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early bonafide. The Court went on to add that the denial of benefit under Rule 56A was not called for. Indirectly the Court held that the provisions of sub-rule (3)(i)(b) are not mandatory. The advocate went on to quote a series of judgments (AIR 1963 S.C. 1417 (at 1424); AIR 1973 S.C, 2548 (at 2550); 1961 ELR 321 (at 323); 1968 S.C. 224 (at 226) and AIR 1957 S.C. 912] to indicate cases where the Courts have held that certain provisions of other Acts are not mandatory but directory and sought to show that in the light of the different cases dealt with by the Courts, in the present case also it could be held that the provisions were not mandatory but directory and that the failure of a third party should not result in the benefit accruin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarding their arrival had been given; the goods seen and the D3 duly endorsed about the identity of the goods having been verified. We do not quite follow how in the absence of gate pass identity was taken to be established; but at this stage of the proceedings the fact of verification is not open to challenge. Rule 56A(3)(i)(b) does provide the relevant gate pass has to accompany the raw material. The claim that this provision is mandatory is belied by the existence of two-trade notices-one each of the Hyderabad and Madras Collectorates. These notices specifically provide that the goods can be brought under the cover of an invoice and the duty paying documents such as gate pass or certificate, can be submitted within either 15 days or on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
