Transitional excise credit timing rules cannot defeat entitlement where duty payment and documentation are undisputed.

A procedural six-month time-limit for taking excise credit was treated leniently during a transitional period when inputs were sent directly to job workers and received back as intermediate products, with duty payment, use of materials, and supporting documents undisputed. In that setting, strict enforcement of the amended time-limit was considered inappropriate, and the denial of credit was stated to be unsustainable. The note concludes that the credit remained admissible because the substantive conditions for entitlement were otherwise satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit could be denied for inputs sent directly to job workers and received back as intermediate products on the ground that the credit was not taken within the six-month period prescribed under the relevant excise rule.

Analysis: The disputed goods were received partly before the change in procedure and partly during the immediate transitional period after the amendment. The payment of duty, use of the material, and supporting documents were not in dispute. In these circumstances, a strict application of the altered time-limit was considered inappropriate and a lenient view was taken for the transitional phase.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was not sustainable, and the disputed credit was admissible to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural time-limit for taking excise credit should not be rigidly enforced so as to defeat credit entitlement where the goods moved during a transitional period, duty payment and documentation are undisputed, and the substantive conditions for credit are otherwise satisfied.

---