ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore and is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 31-8-1988 holding that the respondent is entitled to take notional credit in respect of the inputs covered by Gate Pass No. 122 dated 5-5-1986 and Gate Pass No. 202/29-7-1986. Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R. for the appellant submitted that the gate passes did not contain a specific endorsement that the input supplier came under the operation of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 and when this omission was sought to be rectified by production of a certificate by the respondent, the certificate also happened to be issued by the Inspector of Central Excise and not by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent or Asst. Collector of Central Excise and, therefore, the respondent cannot be held to be entitled to the notional credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Heard Shri K.M. Rajasekaran, the learned consultant for the respondent.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. To a specific query from the Bench as to whether the inputs in question had been supplied by a small scale manufacturer entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as evidenced by the certificate admittedly issued by the Inspector of Central Excise, the learned S.D.R. submitted that there is no finding contra nor a plea is taken even now that the input supplier was not either a small scale manufacturer or one not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986.
4. In the light of the above admitted facts we note that the fact that the gate passes did not contain a specific endorsement about the character of the supplier of the input and the supplier’s entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 is only a procedural irregularity which has been rectified by production of a proper certificate from the Inspector of Central Excise. The omission in the gate passes can only be characterised as an irregularity which is curable. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.