Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
C.C.E. Chandigarh vs M/S. Punjab Concast Steels Ltd. on 30 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(150)ELT91(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
K.K. Bhatia M(T)
1. These are four Revenue appeals against Order-in-Appeal dt. 27.6.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue before him filed against the Orders-in-Original passed by the Asst./ Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, in which, he had allowed the modvat credit to the Respondents -/M/s. Punjab Concast Steel Ltd. on the strength of Gate Passes issued before 31.3.94 and endorsed after this date. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of M/s. Moosa Hazi Patrawala (P) Ltd. reported in 1996 (83) ELT 620 (T), in which the Tribunal has held that the endorsed Gate Passes are not comparable to the issue of Gate Passes and the modvat credit on such Gate Passes would be admissible even after 31.3.94.
2. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue. The Respondents are not represented and their 1d. Counsel, Shri Kulvinder Singh has sent a communication dt. 27.1.2000 requesting for adjournment on health grounds. Since, however, the matter is well settled in a number of earlier decisions of the CEGAT, I am not inclined to accede to the request for adjournment of the 1d. Counsel for the Respondents. It is argued in the Revenue appeal that Reference Application filed by the Department against the aforesaid decision in the case of M/s. Moosa Hazi Patrawala (P) Ltd. stands accepted by the Bombay Bench of the CEGAT and the reference to Bombay Bench of the CEGAT and the references to Bombay High Court has already been made in the matter. The Northern Bench of CEGAT, New Delhi has also made a reference on the issue to Punjab & Haryana High Court, which is also pending consideration of the High Court.
3. I have considered the above submissions. It is not in dispute that the matter stands well settled in favour of the assessees by following the ratio of the aforesaid case i.e., M/s. Moosa Hazi Patrawala (P) Ltd. The fact that the Reference Applications on the issue are under consideration before the Hon'ble High Courts inself is not a sufficient reason to not to follow the ratio of such cases. In fact the Gujarat High Court in a decision on the Reference Application of the Department in the case of CCE Ahmedabad-1 vs. Gujarat Medicraft (P) Ltd. 2001 (42) RLT 475 (Guj.) have held that modvat credit is admissible on such endorsed gate passes upto 30.6.94. I therefore, find no force in the appeal of the Department and the appeal is accordingly, rejected.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)