Deemed credit under a beneficial notification cannot be denied for late availment or an unsupported register entry.

Deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because it was availed after clearance of the final products, since the notification did not prescribe a time-limit or require simultaneous taking of credit. A construction that made late availment fatal would cut down the substantive benefit intended by the notification. A separate denial based only on a register entry showing utilisation was also unsustainable, because there was no supporting evidence of actual use of the credit against clearance documents. The discussion therefore confirms that beneficial credit entitlements must be read according to the notification's text and cannot be defeated by unsupported assumptions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) dated 3-9-1996 could be denied merely because it was not taken at the time of clearance of the final products; (ii) Whether the credit of Rs. 9,208/- could be treated as unavailable on the basis of an entry in the register stating that it had been utilised.

Issue (i): Whether deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) dated 3-9-1996 could be denied merely because it was not taken at the time of clearance of the final products.

Analysis: The notification permitted deemed credit without production of duty-paying documents at the time of clearance. Its language did not impose a condition that credit must be taken only at that moment or lapse thereafter. A construction denying credit merely because it was taken later would defeat the substantive entitlement intended by the notification.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the credit of Rs. 9,208/- could be treated as unavailable on the basis of an entry in the register stating that it had been utilised.

Analysis: There was no finding or documentary evidence showing actual utilisation of the credit against clearance documents. In the absence of such supporting material, a mere register entry was insufficient to establish that the credit had been consumed or was not refundable.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authorities was modified, granting relief on the two contested claims while maintaining rejection of the amount that was not pressed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a beneficial notification allows deemed credit without duty-paying documents, the entitlement cannot be defeated by reading into it a time-limit for availing credit that the text does not contain, and a denial of credit must rest on actual evidence of utilisation rather than an unsupported register entry.

---