4-, I:: . i3ai cvi: uP : aC Z ‘aC C : .G JRE Zte t stn1tI- ayofh z.. v,19 Leore Tia hC’±.. . s.t1c.: v.;. r’i.:c:’ Ku’A-: S - nt_kfltcL. Tf 4lS_aiic)4Th0 pLj)JJ et on: MIt. 54. lCtY flCS 9/2—1, Las s1. Puilcar. a’a&tOi aod Cross, £ehitd Tiles factory Co:louna, Lergelore ti 023 represented r Sri Leepak Shah Autc.oriseci Si n4or. .. P’tiortr r .a. /9’ (F’ Sri Sriatcjr, fly, for S”i .3 v”i, 4 .5. ntcrri-cs, 79 ‘—A, Xe ri b 1. u ‘aa1 £‘0 d Cr.:s, Ie_±cc tiles Pqctory Cotpound, La r cre— 6’ 0i3 (.tiE. rtcc. Sri La p autr.orssd S:ctcr;’. ..Pettirjer if) • .3.341EC’97 ‘ S ri a dv Ic Sri G.o t’ U, Ac s, r d: 1. ;ne Cozaissicner of ertzal aci e, ( 0 .R.2a.i.airs, u tnt 1o , Sanglore—6C CCI. C to cis ol C tr 1 A.el1 te ribursl, iio.26, :‘a-auos Ro:c, 1st P1CCT, “She tr £ dV’ h’ra e Ui diriz” C 006 . p t (C ea (Ly Butt .Stireet hiifrd 0 , bCe) Tkece flit jetitiori fi 1 ed i 1 noer Articlas 216 Era ..3 01 t ae Cs .stitution f Incus :rafln8 to set aside the Annextre—C qz’uers bearir.g !o.2343/96 detea 29m111996 ar4 2797/97 datso a—1o—1997 rtapeotive1 nd tc hUd th t Us. etitionc. s are nt it led to the tenefit of :.odv.t redit or the tiree inoioes in q-e4ion ir tcth the tetitins. These tetitiots coti.g n for rrentini- hesrir€ i B Group, tnas da , the Court u the 4 bflo’ing: CL lit * .P.341591Y: Petitionex herein ol’eflen es Arwezur —C order passed tr tLe end respcndert. L 8:0W cause n tioe wa issued by the Departcent tc stow cai,se fly zodvet crent of 72.O?1.. bhdfld at be Cibs11eG ana e uivajcgt io nt a 4 ot t ecovere or t a •ro rdt’ t l-e an : en o -e vi t en c, ‘e. Tk-e etitiozr reflei to tie c.now ejc noti e. flrte of itis recl3; tie Z.epnt:ett or 1te11e19g4 aisallobc. trie creaa.t af L.,2,097.3t ra .raered for I C e 3 a Cl. e1at ... r 0 le ;Y AT to te invoice proau e t’ tie ne i’aoner h een ersorsod core th r once ‘d as sod’ cr°dit carnot re 4 ,iven. It teld ttat Pie o’u”erts proluced is not — d oct vsno under £cZe 57 8 of the uleE. I erefoe the etitioner preferr U an appeal beforo tifle first A pci te Putkority tie t sponoent erein, By ovrcz +ed 2,9, 06 tke ‘id ap °l or ii ereafter the petiti icr e an I c U n to frare U çuestion of ia aIj5L and r fer the same to the HUh Court for acjudiction. itout aaitirig its 7 ajecosal he Us moved this Court ohallerging the said Arnexure—C order passeo by the secord respo nce ft 2. .97: i i ax que’ticr a one ra ed in B .34 / err or iderEtior r r etitior as weii,11e oetiti er i nufactur of oods ialiir urer Chanter 3 no 25 of the ertral 8cise Tariff Act, 1985, Toe etiticoer ‘as awaiting modvat crecit Ucilit: in respect of gocos, Qhich nc’ever aert pronosec to be denied as regards Annexure— t 4 invnce uir on the 7cno t t it S been e r ea Lore U A she o u e tice 1 vC t the etiti rer to ii I £ reolied, V A t CnI i i ej ote U o e U order 4e order aated 8—1—1994. The etiti:ner preferred stEutory apie A ttiaer Section 3—A of the Act. The A peflste Art”ority by carder dited 13—2—199 cefirm d tne oaer impu.ped. The tetit±orer chqllenned tie orcer in further ap;eal Anrexure—B arm the appeal was re:ected oy Annexure—G order. The said order it ch lle%eca in thi. rooe di p. 3. At tie outset, \rs. Siireen Lafrulit, the learn Counsel appecrir4 fcr the responderte hrs raised a prelinitary ocjectisn ir that ;z ese Writ petiti ners ire not mdntainsbLe is trie li.s.t of availa— bility of -n effecti%e*srr’t1ve resej tr er bee.35— of the Act. te queation, theo ureea for cerideratin is hhetne.r tne remedy under Sec.35—G of the Certrel Excite hot provices an efective slterr4e rezedy to an a.ses:ee uneer the statute to remive the drpute. Ater en tere ct v .. de°,I r tUe fe tlbt ti’it cnrot te i 1 re at n effective It zr’ te rcrzta aveflc-ble t.ta ‘t: e in tin fact ta circuist,rces of U.s case. Secti?n 35—3 sttac thus: “‘ 4 ament “k& (1) The doliector of Cectrel Excise o toe tier perty Qit rn ixt aac o the date u r w ich re serveC with not±ce of an order under Sectior 35C(not beird an crd r rd ti ,, ong ot a t in to the detrmi:2tin of aç; question havine relatin to tbe rate of dut cx ioe r to tie v be of ood for urosts of assessment), by aplcatin in tue arescroea :or, acomranie wir tie ol at! n i nlnde t te other party, by s fee of two bundred runees, recuire the Appellate iribural to rer to t ie Hi Court j3flonof1 ar1si[ out of such order ard, subect to the ot ncr provisions cont aireC ir thi cctior, tie kpel rte fribun’r halI, wit in one curd red nnQ twenty osys 01 the receit of su i oupl1c ti r d ‘w p a ‘t teme Os e °e end re r rt totw 4 ir. Cort: Pr 10 11 t t e A pci te rilun 0 it it $ tl ccl th t t applicant was prevented by sofiicint ca se ion resenting the ep iLoatior at5 r e a c cDecii, aiiO it to re rresre it:ir a fL tr nenicG. rot C0Deed i t tdy abe eeer o etireeG ou ta orof tne !rit ural t draw ‘½’ ‘a ‘n.i ref,r to t?ze ourt ‘an. ueatzcn 3f icy oriein o.k of tim craer”. A ter th cj sti’n raise’ a th s rawared a forther Jecisiorhas tote t%tenb’the’Drifrmnai r e a ft rcr ivnt’ti .iJ ourt. A3 naticed cy the Cinreze Co’;rt ir te re;orted i’. 135l) 19 II. 108 %ile coteidering sri mater urii tio c. U Ii. I’ G’urt under the nco....e Tax tot 1 tbc jurisüicticn of the Ri€h Court 1.3 litCrir°t6d 03 7 ‘5 c.n’uiPtiv’ t.m it w $ rei Cr oriir 1 a. nor øppeflate. In tie aia j : ez* the Suns me “ot.it et teQ thtie: “ t Q t f a t •% tO i ra. of this ci usa, it i recssr:: tz sb’ rtl”,t t ie r r . ?j’” t ir fir.j. -r1er; r’ s.....-r— 12.:. V * .t a.- as ed .Zrt i: 4 or it ‘ufl$lictiOr .f The “ig Cofl. ‘t s:°’1 eeoulrer. it O1C’ri,, C Ow “ e cr’lt xpi of The Co’a!e. It reens to u t t ti’ orde. a ag ‘c+ i ni.. c ..e, cirnot e re arae ..- o 1raI or2er, t 2 it does rut S • p• to o •‘te of tht 73r:se.... ni t’t Pe ri ‘ii :oart is rcjuired tc do u&er Ze t n 21 o t e lit r S aeb lax act is to deci:c tie .;ueetioncf 1w.. r t°U i-cd o 4it u’— aent to the zOLC of aeverue. The ‘..o wI o .everue P n r t epoee of the case it. t.. lLtt 1’ the of the 1.zi Court. It is true thS the kom-2’s or er is ta..eJ or h4 i tqtei cy th High Court to te tie c3rrac.t te’ 1 ‘o’ ‘ or, ut tlw .i ci re-r4rs thet the orde: of the Hi&i .njrt et nth. iv its t r. v-nt cffect the rixhts of ti parties, .Z He fi& oflr in the a ttr s the orier wUa. is odssed a1tiate1y t ’r the aorrd Os ?evvwe. Thit uetion h teen u ly de it cith in’hiiTu Ru I i. EiZ K,:i’A!Y v. CLIE? ±Z! E A’. Citf, ii tt.4.. i:t at Ot uu.it I zt ttt tue oner t;’ the ;iieh C rtw mc’ advi’cr ‘td ute t:e I o11’...n ooservetx ne cf Lore sier a. a’ r :“r ir o: . c 2....sa.t.—.. t L.j..ilis ,.n.C_& a. :e “Inti’ cat z wte’ont .,CLia OX bert, Wtere -, statttte r vi’t.@ tt a ‘m ‘ e •tatei for tte a’-...sion 01 tie ..ourt it qe teid that tie 1,rt’uire tiSht ?riJ9f a 1 aol tn there tot the ec’4vqleft of a judgnt or order. ert rt’t t jt .p’eeU t: t the jurisncti n of tie’’ slcdto a o ; t:tivs, an: tnt tiere ‘CE notrtn Which ao’rt - e9e imouaed to u ‘ nt r net.” It cannot also be iteTh tn he one afl passed by the nigh Coifl in this c-se in the exercite of either ons4 nal or spellamte jurisdi ction. It is ot corterded that the ttter arose in He exerci,e of the ap-iellate 3r1tdiction of the : h Court, beca se there ‘a: no ap.,ei. before it. äor can the matter, procerly speaking, bS saidto have arisen in thc exercise of the oricintl jur:s— diction of tnt .‘fidi Court, as wqs beldbyth- Jwlces of the “ak’ore Sigh Court in the c°te to which ref. rence was aie, becaise the proceedings cii d rot com...ence in the i* Court e all orieiral s its nd proceeinjs stould coence. L’S the U. h Court a juired t isiaction to de-lwith tite ose by virtie of nn e ,res. rovi ira of thc bihar Sales Lax Act. ihe crux of the *er tier f re i t - the jttiaaotion of the HUh Court was only cnsulta— ti,. )‘ jea ‘f &4 P rell ate.” Thus, ‘a judgnent hes to e renerea by the 2rflinel after analysing tte f’ctusl dtuation ‘after receiDt of trs answer to the quection referred to the h.gh C nt. e9e 4. Sittilar view nas oeen taken by the Suprece urt in the oeciicc reortec’ in aIR 1986 SC 421 therein treir Loresnips tibia as follows: “When a questiob of law arises, tie Tnojnal ca ‘nd in certain circum— qtoees imwt ceek at Vie instance of the assessee or in its own iotion or at tm in°ttnee of tl’e revenue the opinon of the .i-n Court ot such a qJbstior. Trw Juzibdiction exercised by the Hieh Court is pure3r ‘advisory, at is neither of Civil Court everci’ing orio’iral, nor of any aprelite or revi:ionai jirts lotion. Therefore, the owers ata 3urisaiction of the ‘iih Courts and in certain c.es of the Eupnze Court, ar ftos thich are e tnened nd conferred upon thee and iso those :ie inhere intheexeri eo tat 3urisdicticr or are qrciilary or flose winch suLervetne exercise of trw functi’n arm iurisQiction of 6 aving advice. fl.e ap)eai is kert bet r t l atetr’ in 1 4t h. id decid. it ‘s £ rendecea rdying on its eiriier cci i ‘ reo rt . i 9 I”R I • it e’fect t e answer providea b;’ the ‘içh Court in e refererce under similar proitisiot under the Irczcze Tax Act ons only qfl edvisory in ..sture and is not final. As stsited tl’e refe’e c ii itdi 4 on n er the eie ent Act Is al so —10— 3. 0 a flat. I tie • ‘a .i t wee I o ‘err’ le tlz c tenti. of tLb resporderts thztt tren tlL%tS in site— ctJve lterr4e re’ssly unde Sec.55—G of the Act. fle wtole aBe r the petit iorr de nds on ke aaissibiutyuldar tule 7 Jot I . I , v-lid accinsnt,c.n rce wkict is erdorsad tore tht onae. !te adzissitidty of s’jck docu’Eielt w orn rca tht ‘ti iralsect Zr uti in 2. .3. Or anics Pit. It vt Coflactor of C.Ex.& Custozas 190(43) £.L.T. ?t1 (Tribul) sra oti iF’ t’ r’t’X ye c eti rs it neld tt : “ Se ki%ve carefuaj co.tiaered tnt ar’unezts froz botr. sides. The .eiri issue to te ‘Pci.e4 in thi app is w et!-er tte dent 0 at ait e LIla t. rec..’ived in r t :qs eruorsec in favour of ti’e appellartr are ;assiw ttrogh zore tht flo ,, c is -ustaz. tie. sxxxsxxzx x .7 xx xx Lx x A,. ix tic. 4° 4 ty t e Jearnea Adtocne, .,.t is evie tL4 the oernent i: keen tO axtend tte credit LC t e . i’ f tor pee c ton the te rec ayeS b4 nc £.artie: ibtecuirt to avsZ. oav’t credit, Goitg cc tcds aoiriz of the elms Thr., b° arc 0 flet ‘I’ — a to 1 :ze’ateth roti* rd £ec’l.nic.l spr,roacn oi the aUthOe rita e b Ic an rej ctir; U l4 of the 3odvet cr ai.t onq or tLe crou 4 tht morethari ore erdor a, etit lave teen qdP alien ti’s i,oazd thea— telvet. L e t icur ueL. I ii t rd a tb proceaursil reqdretiert W of admani t attv irntr’tinat ou)u be the ereevour of the ut?toritio to txtend rodvat ae n wierever, the duty naid n4ure of He -t’ 4 ds i eviJert fr’z the gate p*ses producea nd que’”tuD of ui*y ‘‘id on the in, uts could be arc rtaired from thea. positave appro ccl’ i° called for in tris regara. e - leo t Ice note o the argwert of Sin nrj’a t tat permattir.j a nutier of ..nda’b,e— z.ents would irvov’ ir conidmra”le ,c 1 tla..trot.,ve r,rea aLd the ;ate p ts a aie ii es’ to be s.bused. In tt 4 sS case, it iS C ntanoed bj the otter ide ttt H er’o S a zents nse been !9Qd rot by &ry otier a,f’ctber blO Co ta i a rat. inputs but onsy ry ia..rzeaicr.Zes in tetrdc ni. Ir r 5 deter: ent is ert at led to a cke van— c ti i or i v ‘ti tim i h r ‘ri to tne ,em 1 ineness of tne gate p 2 ss 1 o or t te questior et&r gSe pces h been utilised fcr evailert of od at c,reaa’ at t e e’ S tt te In this case, no such euiry eptears ‘A t ia e ra te n tl’eodvt V creaib has ‘ denied orly o he — 12 the rouna tt ore tiic th’t of re mitt d ndoh e t: F v° e n n in the w4p —aser. Svch %r. order cnot ‘ce sustainable in t coMa of tnt •chere of mi’-t creflt re’ad toc,c a±th the relaxstion 01* ‘ Urn r 6. Ibis jicztion aj4it caae u’ tor c.,nsi. 1 er-tion as uadt&1SIL 211(1 aIiLS v.. CL..RA... iaC..sE,h,..’s’t, Appeal. Lo.h11487,91. The .outh Lonrl ...ench, Madras over by tie IrendentJu%tace t1..Blst, observea it ttis be ‘ 0 1f a. ..ereundar: An enact se invoice aes tot ce s to he en in oice. It con’ tiruss tr ce ap invt ice as conteu— ,,l’tea b; l tam.fl tha tame of the iti to cc •1 e’ ‘ r sen in tue irvoice ?C sin.:, but seen r a t d I e er. e s € ‘ic reesor to ‘ada -uch a tr.rtferel ir;oce c.nnct no.2 odf’ t trtw fia Cur ettertior. :e irvited to tPe t’•’.’ eci ion o tt r ra ael. ‘i the deoiiGv :n av Poly flat 4 damLtcd 196(J3, .-‘. a1(r hcldirig tn-t n eracr°ed bli of £rtry o.la ce suffic:eit -n tecz S (ii) Kritr.na Cold olled S’cticn Lauite1 16( 3. LI 9 ) toLmnr that rke end rcea n o cc a.t er _ 13 - ft I 1444 oi.]. e cu nt cli! iciet* so. the. 1 ur 1 se I eule 57 G. ae agree witn tce view t’k°n :y he 2mciEios of the nua3. dtsdt at tire oout rt )rodiced on thc at er.gtl’ of blob the Ao3eflcIt av-i..ea tae tioavat creSt it eufftciert fs the. Jyro,e I ti- .oI t ° Fe •“ This is the un exnressed in D..S. Orrics Lvt. all’ ore • 4 11. ot.ttir tia rr tre of t.E.S. Crg-in±c’a Øj5a reference ep,1±c”tion unaer .ection ?—G w de a the l#ebntuert before the. ‘I .enct*.cfflratur.a. •t Muet$ am 2ew i’elti, The :.bai iech ir CU’ ..2CL.!)Ca,z4U?B i—I V’. L.Jt.J .a JL uS. •UJ., iS (21 iLL 4b8 ct ted as heseunaer. . 1 ittt i3 * q £1iar ,,.icetic’t seekatg to a raise EflS toittLol ia .tor ste Ic o’ )C,.rt s etcC ti’ ri 1 . I’ L.c$ vs. !a..S”_ kL 1 C 15 (7t3) Lu 14G.. the trituca]. ot2erved— U * 0 tp i r, t Coflec.t r h referrs to the nrovjsjons of Ru e 57G(2) of Ce”tral Excise i’-1es 1914 pnd 3te. dt t’thr e red 3.te Pass is tot vRlld dut ‘aJ f! do øi nt a 14 docume S for the purpose of the said proviaion. We do not agree.. A Gate Pass mentioning the det4]s relaing to the manufactured goods, tariffitem, quant ity, duty paid and consignee is the duty pqirg document. £tdoesnot ce 4 setobesuch duty paying dowment if it is endorsed sore than twice...Jhst was decided was to reject the contention of the department tht a thrice erdorsed gate pass ceases to be evidence of duty paid n*un of the goods. A gate pans with two endorsements has been permitted to be acceptable a5 valid document • The additional third endorsement cannot take it out of that category. If the bcnae tide nSure of the endorsemests could be gone into by the authorities to satisfy themselves about the validity of the cliim within the tens of the Tribunal order. No question of law has arisen in the matt er.” 5. It is also noted th4 in the case of Collector Vs. Sederm Wallea abloeal5(18) LL.T. 241. Bat Zonal Lendi of theTribunal had heLd th* a the case of Sbb Organissis a direct decision onthe issue whether thrice emdorsed gate pass is valid for the purpose of givIng modvat ereait or not and the Tribunal further — 15 further observed that the reliance is therefore, better placed on that decion raUer than on the decion of the Southern ZOnal bench of t Tribunal in the case of Gopalkrishna Folly Industries. The Tribunal further noted that the essence of the Bombay High Court judgment in the c 5 se of Bombay Goods Tr&nsport Associition Vs. UOI — 1995(7) EI 521 relied upon in the Southern Zonal Bench decision is tht modvat credit would be available if duty paid character of the input is proved ani that in fact the gate pa 5 itself, according to the Trih.nal, is a guarantee of the dy because the gate pass signifieses the Quty paid character of the goods and t same origin gate ps was endorsed thrice, This will further strengthenthe view th no point of law for reference to the High Court arises out of the impugned oraer of the Tribunal in this case. 6, I this view of the matter, io question of law requirir reference to the High Court will arise. The application is rejected.’ Likewise the New ielhi bench in C,O.E,, CH!DIG?RH vs. SbUEHTi FELS, 1997(22)RIT 712 stated as follows: 3,Both e 6 “3. Both sides fairly conceded thit issue involved in this case is no longer re.—irtegra in view of the fa 0t th’it tintritunal hi-s been con sistently taking the view thct modvat crecit is permissible on such challans issued by Steel Aut’iority of India. Shri K.K.Angd submitted that isue in this case his been deciaed by tte Tribunal in the judgraett reported in 1990(26) E(Z-412. Further, he submitted that reference application filed by tha departmeS has also been dismissed ty the Tnbuna]. on the similar issue as per Reference Order No. 3/47-48/95—NB doted 1.11.1995. 4. On cing arough tin facts end circumstances ana case l, I And that it is settled position now thA clallans is.ued ty the Canalising A.gencies allWed by the Governaent of India as duty pqing aocuments in tern of .ule j70(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1 1944, for availrentof dat at arbe alloy ed on endorsement. Accordingly, I ace t the cont *ic s ofthe responoent eat in the result, the peal f led y the de artredi&e y dismissed.” Thus 3.b.S. Organis’ case has been treated as the bl!thzlg authority on the Tribunal. The ste is tie vs w e jnn d ta 1995( 9) k.L.I. 523 bj the a 17 a the Delta ssenoh, wherein they stated as follos: “6. Thete appli atiens seek to challenae the Jurisdiction of this Tribun 5 l in a€ idir thete ictues. The thrust of the applicants is that this Tribunal is bound by the directiem ofthe Board issuea in exercise of the statutory powers preecribiN the duty pqing documents. As a matter of fact, this tribunal has not questioned the prese cription of the Board witn regard to the documents. The document’ prescribed as one ‘evidenciqg’ paymert of duty is the s le challan ‘and the ‘ate ass. The significance of these quoted words repro uced trot.. the proviso(71 cube ruse e of 56G h4e to te ap’reciated. The proviso says, in es 0 eree thet ore’ 4 it ca!’ orly be taken on inmite covered by e pste pasC id, bill of entry of arv other documert has oeen prese cribe2 byte Boazd evidencicg tie o4ment of duty on tne inpits. Since the gte passes were alrewly ,rscribed in th pro i..o, the qae4i not the T,oard prescritir it would ot ante. The sale chella has teen preacnibed by the board ca a aocuhent evi2encirg the pay tnt 0 tty. Now, if tie eh1san sno tne gate pass continue to be document towing payment of I ty cnn after one or two enlorsements, they do rot eag to e’rhduty qin acment if I if furtler endorsements are p2t on ttem. The proviso or the rules elsehhere relatirg to nodvat do not coter up n the toard power. to limit the number of endorsement s. Therefore directions issued by the !oard with regard to t he number of endorsement being duty paying document, eitt’er specified in the rule or prescribed inder it e’annc* hwe been issued in exercise of its statutory powers. ThqwouU there fore be in the naure of admirdstra— tive inaructions. Therefore aers paced bythis tribunal hwe only ‘imputned upon the orders issued by the Board in its aazizdstrative capacity.lt w s therefore to be held th* tne question framea in the aprlioations for reference to the Hi.h Court itmelf does not an.e from the orders of this Tribunal.’ But, if we purste the impugned order we notice, a c r*rry de’ havin been t ken bY t e Sout Zonal Bezich, in the deoin..n referred to in the imjtgned or er. n ouch a sittition h4 could oe the quecti r t k-I eat be fornilated by t he Tribunal for reference to the ‘igh Court? The differert benches of the Tricun& nat spoken Ln dif erent iqnner ‘4 as such tht question to be referred may be to recrncile the S / el9e . * 2 pp the dict ted ecision; it is not be an an wet tne I I point riised. in the appeal. Eence one cannot se ILl ‘ invoscing the advisory jurisaiction unier Secticn 35G r of the ict be be an effective re’sedy. The answer to reference under Sectiou 35—G my rot decide tne is e rdIythe Deti iorr oomtletelv. k, therefore oannot be an lttrnàe rem*’. d. 1 fl6 furtler uectiuu,ailt eref-’a t c ,at Fhould be t e relief to e gra id to the etitiorar in the inst-’ c 0 sr, Th: en ntia question rised b) tnt petitiomr is ahether an irwoice endorsed