Rule 57G credit cannot be denied for late duty-paying certificate if goods are identifiable and duty-paid.

Credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules could not be denied merely because the duty-paying certificate did not accompany the goods at the time of receipt, where the certificate was later produced and was shown to relate to the same consignment. The rule, as then framed, required a duty-paying document to support the goods, and the later amendment's wording showed a distinction between physical accompaniment and documentary coverage. Since the goods were identifiable, duty-paid, received in the factory, and used as inputs, the initial absence of the certificate was only a procedural defect capable of cure, and the objection to credit was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules could be denied merely because the duty-paying certificate did not accompany the goods at the time of receipt, when the certificate was later produced and the goods were otherwise identifiable and duty-paid.

Analysis: Rule 57G, as applicable in 1986, contemplated that consignments be accompanied by a gate pass or other duty-paying document; the later amendment used the expression that goods must be received under cover of such a document, showing a distinction between physical accompaniment and documentary coverage. Where the certificate is shown to relate to the consignment, tallies with its physical particulars and duty payment, and credit is taken only after receipt of the certificate, the absence of the document at the moment of receipt is a defect capable of being remedied. The inputs were admittedly received in the factory and used as inputs, and the defect was only procedural.

Conclusion: Credit could not be denied on the ground of the initial absence of the duty-paying certificate, and the objection was not sustainable against the appellant.

---