Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Prince Agro and Allied - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. when the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.2. revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law : "(i) whether the credit can be allowed on the gate passes endorsed more than twice i.e. a document which is neither prescribed under rule 57g(2) of the central excise rules, 1944, nor prescribed by the board in terms of powers conferred under rule 57g (2). (ii) whether tribunal can allow modvat credit on docment not prescribed under rule 57g (2) of the central excise rules, 1944." 4. the tribunal in the case of commissioner of central excise, jaipur vs. sunrise technofab pvt. ltd., reported in 1997 (90) e.l.t. 468 dismissed the reference application filed by the revenue referring the same question of law. the tribunal held as under : "in their judgment in the case of s.b.s. organics (supra), the tribunal had held that the instructions as to the permissible number of endorsements were purely administrative in nature and the facilitation could be extended further as long as there was no danger to the revenue. the text of the two instructions, itself, shows that the instructions do not receive their power from the provisions of rule 57g. the rule specifies a gate pass as an eligible document. a gate pass would remain a gate pass whether or nor it is endorsed subsequently. an endorsed a gate pass does not become a separate document which has to be declared to be an eligible documents in terms of the residual power conferred on the board under the said rule. therefore, the claim made in the reference application is based on wrong appreciation of the law. i, thus, find that the applicant has failed to bring out any question law in the application . the same is, accordingly, dismissed." 5. in view of the above decision of the tribunal reference application is dismissed.

Judgment:
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.

2. Revenue filed this Reference application for referring the following question of law : "(i) Whether the credit can be allowed on the gate passes endorsed more than twice i.e. a document which is neither prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, nor prescribed by the Board in terms of powers conferred under Rule 57G (2).

(ii) Whether Tribunal can allow Modvat credit on docment not prescribed under Rule 57G (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 4. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Sunrise Technofab Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 468 dismissed the reference application filed by the Revenue referring the same question of law. The Tribunal held as under : "In their judgment in the case of S.B.S. Organics (supra), the Tribunal had held that the instructions as to the permissible number of endorsements were purely administrative in nature and the facilitation could be extended further as long as there was no danger to the revenue. The text of the two instructions, itself, shows that the instructions do not receive their power from the provisions of Rule 57G. The Rule specifies a gate pass as an eligible document. A gate pass would remain a gate pass whether or nor it is endorsed subsequently. An endorsed a gate pass does not become a separate document which has to be declared to be an eligible documents in terms of the residual power conferred on the Board under the said Rule. therefore, the claim made in the reference application is based on wrong appreciation of the law. I, thus, find that the applicant has failed to bring out any question law in the application . The same is, accordingly, dismissed." 5. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal Reference application is dismissed.