Modvat credit and account rectification require proper procedure, notice, and eligibility determination; audit objections alone are insufficient.

Modvat credit could not be denied, and RG 23A and PLA entries could not be refused correction, without following the procedure prescribed under the Central Excise Rules. Oral directions or audit objections were insufficient to justify debit entries or reject rectification where proper legal supervision was absent. A tariff-heading mismatch, by itself, did not displace the need for notice and a reasoned determination on whether the inputs were eligible for credit. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh examination of input eligibility and for correction of the accounts in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of Modvat credit and refusal to correct the RG 23A and PLA entries could be sustained without following the prescribed procedure and without determining the eligibility of the inputs used in manufacture.

Analysis: Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules requires accounts to be maintained properly and permits correction of entries only in the manner authorised by law and with departmental supervision. The debit entries made by the assessee on the basis of oral directions or audit objections were not treated as permissible in the absence of proper legal procedure. The denial of credit also could not rest merely on tariff-heading mismatch objections without issuance of a proper notice and a reasoned determination on eligibility. Since the lower authority had not examined whether the inputs qualified for credit and had misdirected the procedure, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was not upheld; the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for examination of eligibility and for correction of the account entries in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial of Modvat credit and refusal to permit rectification of account entries must follow the procedure prescribed by the Central Excise Rules and a proper adjudication on eligibility cannot be replaced by informal audit-based objections.

---