Procedural lapse in D-3 intimation cannot deny Cenvat credit when returned goods are duly accounted for in records.

Cenvat credit and consequential excise benefit could not be denied merely because returned goods were not intimated in D-3 form or separate records were not maintained, where the goods were entered in RG-23 and the rejected goods receipt register and were otherwise duly accounted for. The factual finding that the goods had been received back in the factory and correlated with the prescribed records was not rebutted. The omission to file D-3 intimation was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat the substantive benefit available under excise procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit or consequential benefit could be denied on the ground that returned goods were not intimated in D-3 form and separate records were not maintained, despite the goods being accounted for in the prescribed registers.

Analysis: The returned goods were admittedly entered in RG-23 and in the rejected goods receipt register and were otherwise properly accounted for. The Revenue did not rebut the factual finding that the goods had been received back in the factory and correlated with the relevant records. In such circumstances, omission to file D-3 intimation was treated as a procedural lapse which could not defeat the substantive benefit otherwise available under the governing excise procedure.

Conclusion: The procedural objection was not sufficient to deny the benefit, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive excise benefits cannot be denied merely for procedural non-compliance where receipt and accounting of the goods are otherwise established by records.

---