ORDER
R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. GSM-2386/89-BIII dated 6-12-1989 rejected the appellants’ appeal. The facts involved can be identified as below :
The appellants received certain inputs from one M/s. Neha Engineering (P) Ltd. which is a small scale unit. The inputs were received by the appellants during the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986, during which period M/s. Neha Engineering (P) Ltd. were not granted Gate-Passes and, hence, they had paid duty involved on the invoices issued for removal by way of deposit of the duty amount under TR 6 Challans. They have also obtained a certificate from the Range Supdt. certifying that M/s. Neha Engineering had paid basic excise duty for the clearance made during the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986, during which period Gate Passes were not granted. The certificate also mentioned the invoice numbers and the duty amount involved in each of the invoice and also the payment of duty covered by these invoices under TR 6 Challan No. l/Neha/86, dated 17-3-1986. However, the credit of Rs. 4,338.86 involved in respect of four consignments covered by the certificate issued by the Range Supdt. dated 22-3-1986 has not been allowed, by both the authorities below. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order.
2. Shri Bhatt, on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that it is not disputed that the inputs received under the four invoices were duty paid and duty has been paid. TR 6 challan is also a duty payment document, though it is not specifically mentioned in Rule 57-G. In view of the peculiar circumstances, when the inputs supplier were not granted the GPs form for a certain period and the inputs had to be removed on payment of duty under TR 6 challan, the authorities are not justified in refusing the credit of duty paid under TR 6 challan.
3. Heard Shri Singh, the ld. Jr. D.R. for the respondent.
4. After hearing both the sides, I find that it is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 4,338.86 has been paid under TR 6 challan in respect of the four invoices under which inputs have been received by the appellants. A certificate has also been issued by the Range Supdt. to this effect. He has indicated clearly in the certificate that M/s. Neha Engineering were not granted with GP1 forms during the aforesaid period. Under the Modvat Scheme, credit of duty paid on inputs is given on the basis of particulars of duty A.R 1 etc. Rule 57G prescribes this requirement. It cannot be denied that TR 6 Challans is also an instrument for payment of dues to the Government and the same is prescribed under the Treasury Rules. The only difficulty could be that TR 6 Challans may not have the column for indicating the particulars of goods, in respect of which the sum has been collected as duty. Hence, the TR 6 Challans as such may not be correlatable to the goods cleared. Hence, I find that payment under TR 6 challan is duly correlated to the goods cleared under the invoices consigned to the appellants by the certificate issued by the Range Supdt. This certificate also specifically mentions the exigency under which duty collection was made under TR 6 challan. Hence, the certificate and TR 6 challan are as good as GP 1 and are to be accepted even under Rule 57G. I, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the Assistant Collector to extend the modvat credit on production of original copy of certificate of duty payment on inputs issued by Range Supdt. and TR 6 challan as received by the appellants.