Proforma credit under Rule 56A cannot be denied for technical gate pass defects when duty-paid inputs are otherwise proven.

Proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be refused merely because the gate pass was not in the claimant's own name, was not endorsed in its favour, or was not supported by a subsidiary gate pass. The rule required proof of receipt of duty-paid inputs, prescribed accounts, and satisfaction of the proper officer as to identity and duty-paid character; it did not impose the additional conditions found in trade notices. Where the inputs were received in original packing, original gate passes were produced, D-3 intimation was filed, and a distributor's certificate confirmed sale to the claimant and no objection to credit, substantial compliance was sufficient and technical objections could not defeat entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied merely because the gate passes were not issued in the manufacturer-claimant's own name, were not endorsed in its favour, or were not accompanied by a subsidiary gate pass.

Analysis: Rule 56A(3) requires the manufacturer to establish receipt of duty-paid inputs, maintain the prescribed accounts, and satisfy the proper officer about the identity and duty-paid character of the goods. The rule does not expressly require that the gate pass must stand in the claimant's name. On the facts, the inputs were received in original packing, the original gate passes were produced, D-3 intimation was filed, and a certificate from the distributor confirmed sale of the goods to the claimant and non-objection to the credit. The object of the procedure was satisfied because the department had proof that the inputs were duty paid and there was no allegation that any other manufacturer had taken credit on the same goods. Trade notices could not impose more onerous conditions than the rule, and a mere technical objection as to consignee particulars could not defeat the substantive entitlement.

Conclusion: Proforma credit could not be denied on the sole ground that the claimant was not named as consignee in the gate pass or that there was no endorsement or subsidiary gate pass in its favour. The appeal was therefore liable to fail.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that where duty-paid inputs and non-availment of duplicate credit are established, substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure is sufficient and technical deviations under non-statutory trade notices do not defeat proforma credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Proforma credit under Rule 56A cannot be refused for non-compliance with procedural requirements not mandated by the rule itself, where the assessee has otherwise established receipt of duty-paid inputs and substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure.

---