Proforma credit can coexist with a duty concession where the notification does not expressly exclude Rule 56A credit.

A duty-reducing excise notification did not, by itself, bar proforma credit under Rule 56A because the concession operated in a different sphere and did not fully exempt the goods from duty. The text emphasises that simultaneous fiscal benefits may coexist unless the notification or rule expressly excludes credit, and that express exclusions were used in other notifications when intended. It also notes that a writ petition need not be rejected solely for an alternative statutory remedy where the matter has been pending for years and interim relief has already been granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could be denied proforma credit under Rule 56A merely because it had availed of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 193/81-C.E. dated 3-12-1981; (ii) Whether the writ petition should be refused on the ground that the assessee had an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could be denied proforma credit under Rule 56A merely because it had availed of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 193/81-C.E. dated 3-12-1981.

Analysis: The two benefits operate in different spheres. The notification only reduces the rate of excise duty on specified aluminum goods and does not expressly exclude the operation of Rule 56A. Where the legislature or the notification intended simultaneous exclusion of credit under Rule 56A, it said so in express terms in other notifications. Availment of the concessional notification does not convert the raw material into non-duty-paid goods, because the notification does not exempt duty altogether but only lowers the rate.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to claim proforma credit under Rule 56A notwithstanding availment of the concessional notification, and the impugned direction was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be refused on the ground that the assessee had an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The Court declined to entertain the objection at that stage, noting that the writ petition had been pending for several years and interim relief had already been granted. In those circumstances, it was not appropriate to reject the petition solely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed in effect and the respondents were restrained from enforcing it against the assessee, resulting in complete relief in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A concession under a duty-reducing notification does not, without express exclusion, bar a manufacturer from availing proforma credit under Rule 56A; separate fiscal benefits may coexist unless the notification or rule expressly prohibits their simultaneous operation.

---