Proforma credit under Rule 56A depends on proof of late notice and strict procedural compliance, not departmental advice.

Rule 56A(2B) condonation for late filing of a proforma credit application was available only on proof that the notification reached the manufacturer too late to permit earlier compliance; on the facts, no material showed delayed communication, and trade notices indicated timely circulation, so condonation was refused. The manufacturer also could not claim credit by relying on the absence of departmental advice, because the rule placed the burden of application and procedural compliance on the assessee itself. Technical lapse did not displace the statutory formalities, so the request for credit was rejected and the Department's position was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing the application for proforma credit under Rule 56A(2B) of the Central Excise Rules could be condoned on the plea of late communication of the notification. (ii) Whether the absence of advice from departmental officers entitled the assessee to the credit despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Issue (i): Whether delay in filing the application for proforma credit under Rule 56A(2B) of the Central Excise Rules could be condoned on the plea of late communication of the notification.

Analysis: Rule 56A(2B) permitted condonation only where the Collector was satisfied that the manufacturer could not make the application earlier due to late communication of the notification. The assessee produced no material to establish such delay. On the contrary, the trade notices issued by the Collector showed that the procedure had been timely communicated to the trade.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the assessee's claim failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of advice from departmental officers entitled the assessee to the credit despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The procedure under Rule 56A required the manufacturer to make the application and comply with the prescribed formalities. The responsibility could not be shifted to the departmental authorities merely because no advice was given. The plea of technical lapse did not override the statutory requirement of compliance.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to relief on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the cross objection succeeded in consequence, leaving the Department's rejection of the request undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation under Rule 56A(2B) can be granted only on proof of timely-notice failure or other statutorily recognised grounds, and a manufacturer cannot claim proforma credit by shifting the burden of procedural compliance to the Department.

---