Modvat credit must be tested under the correct rule on its merits; earlier rejection under one provision does not bar fresh consideration.

Modvat credit on furnace oil had to be examined under the applicable statutory provision on its own merits, and an earlier rejection under Rule 57H(1) did not bar consideration under Rule 57G where admissibility could still be tested on the challan, certificate and notification. The credit claim was therefore not finally foreclosed by the prior refusal; the matter required fresh adjudication by the original authority. The impugned order was set aside and the case remanded for reconsideration after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on furnace oil was admissible under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 despite an earlier rejection of the claim under Rule 57H(1), and whether the matter required reconsideration by the original authority.

Analysis: The credit had earlier been denied under Rule 57H(1), but the claim was also capable of examination under Rule 57G on the basis of the challan/certificate and the relevant notification. A claim for credit should be tested under the applicable provision on its merits, and if one route is not available the authority must still examine whether credit is otherwise permissible under another applicable provision. Since the earlier rejection under Rule 57H(1) did not foreclose consideration under Rule 57G, the matter required fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the original authority to examine admissibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57G after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a fresh consideration of the credit claim on the correct statutory basis, and the denial of credit was not sustained at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A credit claim must be examined under the applicable statutory provision on its own merits, and an earlier rejection under one provision does not preclude consideration under another provision if the latter may independently support admissibility.

---