Curable procedural defect in excise credit documentation does not defeat notional credit when supplier eligibility is otherwise proved.

Notional credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was available where the inputs were shown to have been supplied by a small scale manufacturer eligible for Notification No. 175/86, even though the gate passes lacked a specific endorsement of that entitlement. The absence of the endorsement was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar, because a certificate from the Inspector of Central Excise established the supplier's eligibility. The documentation defect was therefore curable, and it did not defeat the respondent's substantive right to credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to notional credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where the gate passes did not contain a specific endorsement regarding the supplier's entitlement under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986, but a certificate from the Inspector of Central Excise was produced.

Analysis: The relevant inputs were accepted as having been supplied by a small scale manufacturer entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The absence of a specific endorsement on the gate passes was treated as a procedural omission. That omission stood cured by production of the certificate, and the defect was held to be curable rather than substantive.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the notional credit, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: A procedural defect in the supporting documents did not defeat substantive entitlement to credit where the supplier's eligibility was otherwise established.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural irregularity in documentation is curable when the substantive eligibility for credit is established by reliable evidence.

---