Southern Steels Ltd. vs Union of India

V. Sivaraman Nair, J.—Petitioner is a manufacturer of steel materials. The goods are subjected to Central Excise duty. The petitioner-unit is covered by a Central Excise licence and it has opened a P.L.A. Account in respect of iron and steel. It appears that it had despatched excisable goods with a gate pass to the consignee in Aurangabad, Maharashtra State, on 29-4-1993. The transport had to be accompanied by the gate pass evidencing payment of duty. According to the petitioner, the goods were despatched along with gate pass, which was entrusted to the transporter. On the allegation that the driver of the transport vehicle has lost the original gate pass, the petitioner applied for a copy of the gate pass. Second respondent refused to issue a copy and issued Trade Notice No. 7/93, dated 27-1-1993, to the effect that no credit would be allowed based on the certified copy or authenticated photo copy of the original G.P. 1 on the ground that the original G.P. 1 is lost; and also no subsidiary G.P. 1 would be issued based on these copies.

Petitioner submits that the consignment effected on 29-4-1993 has reached the destination of the consignee. But, it submits that the consignee is disabled to claim Modvat credit in the absence of the original or a copy of G.P. 1 gate pass. Petitioner has, therefore, sought to quash the Trade Notice No. 7/93 of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, as illegal and devoid of jurisdiction. It also seeks a direction to the respondents to envisage a procedure for claim of Modvat credit in cases of genuine loss of original G.P. 1. Further direction is sought to compel the respondents to give Modvat credit to the consignee - M/s. Sterlite Industries (I) Limited, Aurangabad, on the gate passes 051, 052 and 054, dated 29-4-1993 of M/s. Southern Steel Limited, Hyderabad.

The claim of the petitioner is based on Rule 224B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which provides that a duplicate of any certificate, registration certificate, transport permit or other document issued to any person may be furnished to such person at the discretion of the proper officer on payment of a fee Rs. 30/-, if that officer is satisfied that no fraud had been committed or is intended by the applicant. Petitioner submits that it has specified that the original has been lost. It also submits that the original or a certified copy is necessary for the purpose of enabling the consignee to claim Modvat credit. Excepting to enable the consignee to claim Modvat credit, the petitioner has not stated any reason why it shall have a copy of G.P. 1 gate pass.

Mr. P. Innayya Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, submits that Rule 57G(4) of the Central Excise Rules, which was enacted with effect from 1-2-1990 by amendment of Rules as per M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 1/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-2- 1990, specifically provides that a manufacturer of the final products shall submit to Superintendent of Central Excise the Original documents evidencing the payment of duty along with extracts of Parts I and II of R.G. 23A every month and the Superintendent of Central Excise shall, after verifying their genuineness, deface such documents and return the same to the manufacturer. He submits further that duplicate or authenticated copies of gate passes and other similar documents were being misused fraudulently to a large extent and that was the reason why Rule 57G(4) had to be incorporated insisting that except the original documents evidencing payment of duty, no other document would be accepted for purposes of granting Modvat credit. He submits that in the light of the above provision, the only reason, which the petitioner mentions justifying the relief which it seeks in this writ petition, namely, that copies of gate passes are necessary to enable the consignee to claim Modvat credit, cannot be sustained.

Counsel for petitioner submits that whether there has been or will there be any fraud or misuse of copy of the document, if it is issued, is totally irrelevant and the same can be considered at the time of grant or refusal of Modvat credit. Therefore, respondents may be directed to issue copies as required by Rule 224B of the Central Excise Rules.

We find that the only person, who is likely to be affected by refusal to grant a certified copy or authenticated copy of G.P. 1 gate pass, may be the consignee and in any case, the consignor, who is the petitioner, is not likely to be affected in any manner. Gate pass indicates genuineness and legality of transport of excisable goods and also payment of duty at the time or prior to its removal. Rule 57G(4) of the Central Excise Rules makes it obligatory that the manufacturer of final products, who claims credit for payment of duty, has to produce the original documents and original documents alone. Grant of certified copy of gate pass to the petitioner will not assist the consignee, who is the final manufacturer, to obtain credit of duty paid by the petitioner. In this sense, the petitioner has no interest at all in the proceedings. The only person, who is likely to be affected, is the consignee. We also find that there is no challenge to the provisions contained in Rule 57G(4) of the Central Excise Rules in the writ petition. Understandably, the petitioner could not have raised a contention like that because he was not concerned directly with the grant or refusal of Modvat credit to the consignee, who is the final manufacturer. The validity of Trade Notice, which is in terms of or in compliance with Rule 57G(4), cannot, therefore, be assailed by the petitioner, which has discharged all its duties and obligations by transporting the manufactured goods on 29-4-1993, which, according to petitioner, was accompanied by the original G.P. 1 gate pass and which is said to have been lost.

We find that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved either by the Trade Notice, or by the provisions contained in Rule 57G(4) of the Central Excise Rules, or by refusal by the concerned authorities to grant certified/authenticated copies of G.P. 1 gate pass in terms of Rule 224B of the Central Excise Rules.

For the abovementioned reasons, we do not find any justification to grant any relief, which the petitioner seeks in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. No costs.