Modvat credit on later-paid additional duty cannot be denied for want of a Superintendent's certificate when payment is otherwise proved.

Rule 57E allowed credit of subsequently paid additional duty on inputs where the assessee could show that the differential duty had in fact been paid. Denial of Modvat credit could not rest on the absence of a certificate from the jurisdictional Superintendent of the input manufacturers, because the rule did not prescribe that certificate as a condition for credit. Official records evidencing payment of the additional duty were sufficient, and where those documents were not shown to be false or nonexistent, the credit claim was sustainable. An uncommunicated departmental instruction could not add a further procedural requirement and defeat the credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to take credit of additional duty paid subsequently on inputs under Rule 57E, and whether denial of credit was justified for want of a certificate from the jurisdictional Superintendent of the input manufacturers.

Analysis: The appellant had initially taken proforma credit on duty-paid inputs and, after the manufacturers paid additional duty, sought credit of the differential duty. The basis of denial was the absence of a certificate from the Superintendent of the manufacturers' range. The relevant rule did not prescribe such a certification as a condition for availing credit; it required only proof that additional duty had in fact been paid. The record showed such proof by official documents evidencing the additional duty payment, and there was no allegation that the documents were false or nonexistent. Since the departmental instruction imposing an additional certification requirement had not been communicated to the appellant, the credit could not be denied on that basis.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the credit, and the denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable.

---