V.P. Gulati, Vice-President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the availability of Modvat credit in respect of goods which were covered by an invoice-cum-challan of Steel Authority of India Ltd., and which had been endorsed twice.
2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants should have been allowed the Modvat credit notwithstanding the fact that the Board has notified the acceptance of documents which had been endorsed once only. In this connection, he cited the decision of this Bench vide Order No. 1020/97 dt. 11.4.1997 and also the North Regional Bench decision in the case of CCE Chandigarh v. Jay ENN Castings Ltd. reported in 1997 (22) RLT 210 (T).
3. He has pleaded that the invoice issued by SAIL had been notified as a valid document in the place of gate pass. He has pleaded therefore the benefit of Modvat credit could have been allowed. He however fairly concedes that the valid document at the relevant time but for the special exemption given to SAIL was a gate pass and the gate pass which had been endorsed only once was notified as an acceptable document under Rule 57G for Modvat purposes. He could not show any Notification whereby the gate pass endorsed twice was notified as a document for Rule 57G purposes for taking Modvat credit.
4. Heard the Ld. JDR for the department. He has pleaded that the Board taking into consideration the Revenue interest has notified that the Gate Pass which had been endorsed once only alone would be the valid document for Modvat purposes and since the invoice-cum-challan of SAIL was notified in lieu of the gate pass relaxation available only to that extent could be allowed in respect of this document also.
5. I have considered the pleas made by both the sides. The admitted position is that the Gate Pass endorsed twice was not notified as a valid document for Modvat purposes at the relevant time. The substitute document i.e. Invoice-cum-Challan of SAIL which had been notified therefore likewise if endorsed twice could not be considered as a valid document. I observe that the Board has been vested with the authority to notify any document in lieu of Gate Pass as proper document for Modvat purposes. Taking into consideration the ground realities of the verification that was feasible to be done regarding duty paid nature of the goods the Board relaxed the condition and allowed the Gate Pass endorsed once only as also a valid document. If large number of endorsements are allowed on the gate pass, then it might not have been possible for the department to verify by following-up the movement of the consignment from place to place as to whether the very same goods which were earlier cleared on the gate pass were moved on subsequent endorsement.
6. In view of above, I hold that the ratio of the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate as above is not applicable to the facts of this case and is distinguishable. In this view of the matter, I hold that no interference is called for in the Ld. Lower Authority’s order and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court).
