G.C.R.No.9 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:18.03.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Him Cylinder (P) Limited ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel(Indirect Taxes), for the petitioner. Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The Tribunal has referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court:- “Whether Gate passes issued on or before 31.3.94 but endorsed after that date i.e. 31.3.94 would fall under the the coverage of Entry No.10 in the table to the Notification No.16/94-CE (N.T.) dated 30.3.94 and would consequently become eligible document for taking credit under the Modvat Scheme?” Learned counsel for the revenue has fairly acknowledged that the question of law involved in this reference has already been answered by this Court in CEC No.34 of 2004 decided on 11.07.2006 titled as Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Versus M/s Auto Spark Industries, Panchkula, which is in the following manner:- “The question involved in these petitions is whether MODVAT credit on the strength of Gate passes issued prior to 1.4.1994 but endorsed thereafter, upto 30.6.1994, would be valid documents for availment of credit under G.C.R.No.9 of 2001 2 notification No. 16 (94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.1994. The Tribunal has taken a view against the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the same view has been taken by the High Court of Gujarat in its judgment dated 22.11.2000, in Reference Application No. 16 of 2000, titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I vs. Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. It is further pointed out that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court has been accepted by the Department. Circular dated 19.11.2001 has been issued by the Department, which has been noticed by the Tribunal in its order reported in 2004(177) E.L.T. 807 (Tri.-Del.) titled Finmac Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II”. The same view was reiterated by a Division Bench of H.P. High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Saras Poly Pack , 2008 (232) E.L.T. 418(H.P.) and by this Court in CCE, Commissionerate-I, Chandigarh Versus Suraj Udyog, 2002(144) E.L.T. 293 (P&H). Apart from the above, this Court in GCR No.8 of 1999 decided on 11.03.2010 titled as Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Versus M/s Stelko Strips Ltd. and others, has also taken the same view by relying upon M/s Auto Spark Industries's case(supra) in CEC No.34 of 2004 decided on 11.07.2006. In view of the above, this reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 18, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE