SHREE POLYTEX P. LTD. Vs. CCE, JAIPUR-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 74,250/ -, disallowed as Modvat Credit (sic) under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.

(2.) Shri O.P. Agrawal, learned C.A., submitted that they had availed of Modvat Credit on the strength of gate -passes which were endorsed three times; that the Asstt. Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 275/96 dated 21.8.96 dropped the demand following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.B.S. Organic Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, 1990 (45)s ELT 70ls; that however, on appeal Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE vs. Shri Gopal Krishan Poly Industries, 1996 (84) ELT 235. The learned C.A. further submitted that what is relevant is substantial compliance with the provisions of the law and as they have substantially complied with the law the benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied to them; that in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Bansal Industries, 1995 (78) ELT 149 the Tribunal did not refer the matter to the High Court holding that the Additional third endorsement cannot take gate pass out of category of valid duty paying documents; that similarly in the case of Asstt. Commissioner vs. Priyakant Carbon and Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2001 (42) RLT 472 (Gujarat)s the Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal's decision in the case of SBS Organics was in variance with the Board's instructions dated 17.4.89 and the same may be considered as an exception and would be made applicable to the individual case and should not be made applicable to the gate passes which were endorsed more than twice, could not render the decision of the Tribunal negatory by simply issuing the another circular. He, therefore, submitted that as the duty paid nature of the goods is not in dispute the Modvat Credit was available to them and the entire predeposit should be waived.

(3.) Shri K. Panchacharan, learned D.R. reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order.