Excise credit requires proof of receipt of inputs; documents in another name will not suffice without linkage evidence.

Credit under the excise credit scheme requires proper duty paying documents and supporting evidence linking the inputs to the claimant's receipt of goods. Where the documents stand in another party's name, the claimant must prove that the goods were actually consigned to and received by it; a mere procedural irregularity is insufficient. On the facts, no material showed that the goods were supplied to the appellant, so denial of credit was justified. The penalty was nevertheless set aside as unwarranted in the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit was admissible when the duty paying documents were not in the name of the appellant and no evidence was produced to show that the goods were supplied to the appellant.

Analysis: Credit under the relevant excise credit scheme depends upon production of proper duty paying documents and supporting material showing linkage between the documents and the receipt of inputs by the claimant. Where the documents are not in the claimant's name, the claimant must establish by evidence that the goods were actually consigned to and received by it. In the absence of such evidence, the plea of a mere procedural irregularity cannot sustain the credit claim. On the facts, the appellant failed to produce any material to show that the goods were supplied to it, so the denial of credit was justified. The penalty, however, was not warranted in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was upheld, but the penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit cannot be allowed on duty paying documents standing in another's name unless the claimant proves by evidence that the inputs were actually supplied to and received by it.

---