The captioned appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals) in which the Collector (Appeals) while upholding the order of the Asstt. Collector rejected the Department's appeal.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of R.C.C. Poles and Collars. The respondents had taken credit of duty under Modvat Scheme on the strength of gate passes which were endorsed twice and were for lesser quantities than the quantities shown in the gate passes. The respondents submitted their RT-12 returns in the months of September, October and November, 1991. Show-cause notice was issued to the respondents herein on 23.3.1992. The Asstt. Collector dropped the proceedings against the respondents herein. One of the grounds for dropping in the proceedings was limitation.

3. Shri Ramsaran, the learned DR appearing for the appellant submitted that for computing the period of six months, the date of submission of RT-12 returns is material. The ld. DR submitted that if the date of submission of RT-12 returns is taken into consideration than all the demands were within six months from the date of issue of show-cause notice. He submitted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs under proviso to Rule 57G (2) was competent and prescribed any other document as duty paying documents; that in exercise of powers under this Rule, the CBEC prescribed that original gate pass which had been endorsed once could be further endorsed again provided the entire goods covered by it were transferred to the third party in the original packing. The ld. DR submitted that the admitted position in the instant case was that the entire consignment was not transferred; that Board's instructions are subordinate legislation and are binding on all authorities; that the appellate authority did not taken the above facts into consideration before passing the order-in-appeal and hence the order-in-appeal may be set aside.

4. Ms Ginny Bedi, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that so far as the first point relating to counting of six months is concerned, the position in the Rule was very clear in as much as after amendment of Rule 57I the period of six months is to be counted from the date of taking credit. She submitted that admittedly if the date of taking credit is taken into consideration then some of demands are hit by limitation. On the question of endorsement in the original gate passes, the learned Counsel submitted that there is a catena of judgements rendered by this Tribunal whereunder it has been held that a gate pass having two endorsements does not become an invalid document purporting the payment of duty. The learned Counsel also submitted that if part consignments are endorsed even then the gate pass does not become an invalid document for taking credit of duty under Modvat Scheme. The learned Counsel submitted that Board in its instructions has admitted by issue of instructions that even part consignments can be endorsed on the gate passes and the gate passes shall remain a valid duty paying document for purpose of taking credit under the Modvat Scheme. I find that there is force in the arguments of the Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the case law on the subject and other instructions issued by the Government. I hold that credit of duty under Modvat Scheme shall be eligible to the respondents in the instant case. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.