Procedural non-filing cannot defeat credit certificate where differential duty on captively consumed goods was voluntarily paid without suppression.

Where differential duty on captively consumed goods was voluntarily paid after the lower profit element in valuation was pointed out, and no suppression or misdeclaration was alleged, the assessee remained entitled to the consequential certificate under Rule 57E. The absence of a declaration under Rule 173C was only a procedural objection and could not, by itself, defeat entitlement to the certificate. The certificate was therefore granted and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to a certificate under Rule 57E for additional duty paid on captively consumed goods, notwithstanding the absence of a declaration under Rule 173C.

Analysis: The additional duty arose only because the profit element taken for valuation of captively consumed goods was found to be lower than the actual profit, and the assessee paid the differential duty when this was pointed out. The Department did not allege suppression or misdeclaration, and after payment of the duty it took no further action by way of interest or penalty. These circumstances indicated that the short payment was not attributable to any fraudulent or suppressive conduct. In that setting, denial of the certificate merely for non-filing of the declaration under Rule 173C was not justified.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the certificate under Rule 57E, and the objection based on Rule 173C was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee obtained relief for issuance of the certificate covering the additional duty paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where differential duty on captively consumed goods is voluntarily made good without any finding of suppression or misdeclaration, a procedural objection based on non-filing of a declaration cannot by itself defeat entitlement to the consequential credit certificate.

---