Wrong statutory citation does not defeat credit claim where substantive entitlement exists; fresh examination required under Rule 56A.

A wrong citation of the credit provision does not by itself defeat an assessee's claim if the substantive entitlement is otherwise available. The Court explained that Rule 56A(9) prevents double benefit under Rules 56A and 57A, but that restriction must be read in context; a book entry under one provision is not necessarily conclusive taking of credit if that provision is later found inapplicable and the credit is sought to be returned. The assessee was therefore not barred merely because Rule 57A had initially been invoked, and the matter was remitted for fresh examination of entitlement under Rule 56A(8), including whether its procedural requirements were satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who wrongly claimed Modvat credit under Rule 57A could be denied relief under Rule 56A on the ground of mistaken citation, and whether the claim required fresh examination in light of the requirement that credit not be taken under both provisions.

Analysis: The Court held that a wrong mention of the statutory provision does not by itself defeat a claim if the assessee is otherwise legally entitled to relief. Rule 56A(9) bars double benefit under Rules 56A and 57A, but the expression used there must be understood in its proper context. Where credit initially entered under one provision is later found inapplicable and is sought to be returned, the mere book entry does not necessarily amount to a conclusive taking of credit so as to foreclose a claim under the other rule. At the same time, the Court noted that compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 56A(8) had not been fully examined on the record.

Conclusion: The assessee was not barred merely because it had initially invoked Rule 57A, and the matter had to be considered afresh by the Assistant Commissioner to determine entitlement under Rule 56A(8).

---