Proforma credit under Rule 56A depends on strict correlation compliance and cannot reopen final excise assessments.

Proforma credit under Rule 56A depended on timely compliance with the prescribed correlation between duty-paid raw materials and the finished products. Where the appellants failed to establish that correlation within the relevant period and furnished the necessary RG-23 particulars only later, the claim was rejected as an attempt to obtain credit without following the required procedure. For the later period, completed RT-12 assessments were treated as final, and the claim could not be used to reopen them or obtain indirect time-barred refund relief. The result was that the claim for proforma credit was disallowed and the final assessments remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to proforma credit for the period from 1-3-1973 to 24-8-1973 without strict correlation of the raw materials with the finished products; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to credit for the period from 25-8-1973 to 28-2-1974 even though the RT-12 assessments had become final.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to proforma credit for the period from 1-3-1973 to 24-8-1973 without strict correlation of the raw materials with the finished products.

Analysis: The claim depended on compliance with Rule 56A, which required correlation of duty-paid raw materials with the finished products for the relevant period. The appellants did not establish such correlation in time, and the relevant RG-23 particulars were furnished only much later. The request was, in substance, an attempt to obtain the benefit of credit without following the prescribed procedure and without supporting a consequential refund of duty already paid on clearances.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to proforma credit for this period.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to credit for the period from 25-8-1973 to 28-2-1974 even though the RT-12 assessments had become final.

Analysis: For the later period, the assessments had already been completed and the appellants had not taken timely steps to establish entitlement to credit in the manner required. The attempt to reopen the completed assessments was viewed as a device to secure time-barred refund relief rather than a legitimate claim for credit. The absence of timely procedural compliance and the finality of the assessments defeated the claim.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to credit for this period, and the assessments could not be reopened.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the claim for proforma credit and for reopening the assessments was upheld, leaving the excise authorities' order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proforma credit under Rule 56A is available only on compliance with the prescribed correlation procedure and cannot be used to reopen final assessments or secure an indirect refund of duty already paid on clearances.

---