Procedural declaration lapse cannot defeat money credit when the claim was accepted subject to verification and no disqualification was shown.

Money credit under the procedural declaration rule could not be refused merely for strict non-observance where the manufacturer had already made the claim in the classification list and the proper officer accepted it subject to verification. Rule 57(O) required a declaration and acknowledgement before credit, but the department did not show any adverse verification report or factual disqualification of the assessee. On those facts, the technical lapse was held insufficient to defeat entitlement, and the credit claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether money credit could be denied for non-observance of the prescribed declaration procedure under Rule 57(O) when the claim had been made in the classification list and accepted subject to verification.

Analysis: Rule 57(O) required the manufacturer to file a declaration and obtain acknowledgement before availing the credit, while Rule 173B served the separate purpose of classification and rate of duty. However, the Assistant Collector had accepted the request subject to verification by the Superintendent and did not require a separate declaration or call for further information. The department did not show that any verification report disqualified the assessee or that the facts were comparable to the cited precedent.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied merely for strict non-observance of Rule 57(O) in the specific facts of the case, and the assessee's entitlement was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proper officer has accepted a claim subject to verification and the department fails to establish disqualification on facts, credit cannot be refused solely for technical non-compliance with the procedural declaration requirement.

---