ORDER
S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the Notification No. 1 of 1990, dated 1st February, 1990 by which sub-rule (4) of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been amended. The petitioners also seek to challenge the Circular bearing No. 25/92/CX-8, dated 15th December, 1992 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, as also a Trade Notice No. 1 of 1993 dated 27th January, 1993 issued by the Additional Collector (Tech.), Central Excise, by which the procedure earlier prevailing to issue certified copy of the Gate Pass, where the original is lost in transit, has been discontinued.
2. By the above Notfn. No. 1/90-CE(NT), dated 1st February, 1990 the Central Excise (First Amendment) Rules, 1990 came into force. By the said Amendment sub-rule (4) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules had been substituted and the substituted sub-rule reads as under :-
“(4) A manufacturer of the final products shall submit to Superintendent of the Central Excise the original documents evidencing the payment of duty along with extracts of Parts I and II of Form RG 23-A every month and the Superintendent of Central Excise shall, after verifying their genuineness, deface such documents and return the same to the manufacturer.”
3. According to the petitioners the Circular dated 15th December, 1992 (Exhibit ‘B’ to the Petition) is unreasonable and bad-in-law inasmuch as it provides that no credit will be allowed based on Certified Copy or authenticated photocopy of the original Gate Pass on the ground that the original is lost. It was submitted that prior to the said Circular credit was given even on a Certified Copy or an Authenticated Photocopy of the original Gate Pass-I wherever the original Gate Pass was lost. It was further submitted that a transporter has to carry large number of goods as also documents in support of each of the consignment and it was for this reason that the earlier Circulars allowed the said credit even on Certified Copy or an Authenticated photocopy of the Gate Pass which, according to the petitioners, has been done away with unreasonably and without any authority of law. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the above Amendment as also the Circular dated 15th December, 1992 and the Trade Notice dated 27th January, 1993 were arbitrary, unreasonable and bad-in-law and they violated the fundamental rights to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was also submitted that the impugned Circular dated 15th December, 1992 as also the Trade Notice dated 27th January, 1993 (Exhibit ‘B’ and Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition respectively) were contrary to Rule 224(B) of Central Excise Rules which provide for duplicate of documents to be supplied on payment of fees.
4. We do not see any merits in the Writ Petition. Rule 57G falls under Chapter VAA which deals with credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. Rule 57G prescribes a procedure to be followed by the manufacturer who claims proforma credit of duty under Modvat. Under Rule 57G a manufacturer of the final product is required to submit documents including extracts of Part I and Part II of Form RG 23A to the Superintendent of Central Excise every month who thereupon shall after verifying their genuineness, deface such docments and return the same to the manufacturer. One of the several documents evidencing payment of duty is the Gate Pass. By the impugned Circular dated 15th December, 1992 the only change which is brought about is that no credit would be allowed based on Certified Copy or Authenticated photocopy of the original Gate Pass-I. It is for the claimant to prove by such documents are required to be submitted that duty has been paid on excisable goods used as Inputs. One of such documents required to be submitted being the Gate Pass. In other words, if genuine documents like invoices, extracts of Part I and Part II of R.G. 23A Form and the documents mentioned therein are produced before the Competent Authority evidencing proof of payment of duty on inputs then he would be entitled to proforma credit under Modvat. The said impugned Circular dated 15th December, 1992 as well as the Trade Notice dated 27th January, 1993 are therefore in consonance with the Rule 57G(4) (as newly amended). In the circumstances, there is no merit in the above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.
5. There is also no violation of Rule 224(B) of the Central Excise Rules because there is no embargo on the claimant filing the duplicate of documents by virtue of the impugned circular. The impugned Circular, as stated above, only provides that proforma credit will not be allowed on the basis of Certified Copy or Authenticated photocopy of the original Gate Pass-I.
6. Mr. Desai, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department states that on account of large scale frauds detected by the Department the above impugned Circular came to be issued. He further submitted that in order to claim proforma credit under Modvat, the claimant has to submit documents as provided under the Rules dealing with credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs, like invoice, extracts of Part I and Part II of Form RG 23A etc. and if the Competent Authority is satisfied about their genuineness then credit will be allowed. Mr. Desai further submitted that by the impugned Circular the only clarification that is issued is that credit will not be allowed on Certified Copy or Authenticated photocopy of the original Gate Pass and in the circumstances the impugned Circular was valid.
7. We find considerable merit in the said contention. As stated above by the impugned Circular it is clarified that the credit will not be allowed on the Certified Copy or Authnticated photocopy of the original Gate Pass. The said Circular does not disentitle the claimant from proving that duty has been paid on excisable goods used as inputs under the Rules.
8. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly the same is rejected.