ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. The present case involves admissibility of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs on gate passes issued by a manufacturer prior to 1-4-1994 but the credit was taken by the respondents herein after receipt of the intermediate processed goods through job worker, supplied directly to the job worker by the manufacturer on the advice of the respondents as per the procedure prescribed under a notification issued under Rule 57]. A question has arisen whether in such cases the Modvat credit taken by the respondents after 30-6-1994 as prescribed in Notification 16/94-C.E. would be still applicable in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above.
2. The respondents herein have succeeded before the lower appellate authority whose findings are given in paras 9 & 10 of the impugned order. These two paras are reproduced below :-
9. I find that the intermediate processed goods were received in full by the appellants from the job worker under subsidiary challans as per procedure prescribed under Rule 57F(3) read with Notification No. 351/86 issued under Rule 57] and the original GP-1 No. 30989, dated 24-2-1994 was received by the appellants only on 18-6-1995 with the last batch of the consignment covered under subsidiary Challan No. 8, dated 17-6-1995 issued by M/s. Tribhuwan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Faizabad (Processors). The Assistant Commissioner has also agreed that the appellants have followed the procedure of Notification No. 351 /86, dated 20-6-1986 for job work.
10. I also agree with the contention of the appellants that Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 can in no way have the overriding effect to the procedural requirements laid down in Rule 57F; wherein no time limit for return of the intermediate products from the job worker has been provided. Hence in my opinion, the Modvat credit to the appellants cannot be denied on the ground that they have not followed the procedures as laid down under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994.
3. As against the aforesaid findings ld. JDR Shri A.M. Tilak drawing attention to the grounds of appeal mentioned in the Revenue’s appeal points out that Notification No. 16/94-C.E. prescribes a date i.e. 30-6-1994 upto which the Modvat credit can be taken against valid duty paying document issued prior to 1-4-1994. This notification, he submits, is the final word on taking of Modvat credit in respect of documents issued upto 31-3-1994. He therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order allowing the appeal of the Revenue.
4. On the other hand, ld. Advocate Shri M.P. Devnath assisted by Shri Pragyan Sharma have relied upon the aforesaid findings of the lower appellate authority reproduced earlier.
5. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority that Notification 16/94 will not have any application in respect of procedure followed under 57J for the reasons given by the lower appellate authority in the impugned order. I, therefore, reject the appeal of the Revenue.