Accumulated duty credit and clandestine removal claims fail where existing credit survives amendment and evidence lacks corroboration.

Accumulated credit under Rule 56A did not lapse merely because an amending notification withdrew further accumulation; credit already standing in the register remained utilisable, so the demand based on disallowance of that credit failed. The alleged duty demand on 8.5 kilos of yarn shortage after re-processing was unsustainable because the quantity was treated as re-processing waste accounted for in the books and, in any event, covered by the relevant exemption. Allegations of clandestine production and removal of texturised yarn were not proved, as internal memoranda lacked definite dates and corroboration. The demand was also held barred by limitation in the facts found.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated credit under Rule 56A could be utilised after the amending notification withdrew further accumulation of credit; (ii) whether duty demand on 8.5 kilos of yarn alleged shortage after re-processing was sustainable; (iii) whether the allegation of clandestine production and removal of texturised yarn was established on the basis of internal memoranda and other material; (iv) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated credit under Rule 56A could be utilised after the amending notification withdrew further accumulation of credit.

Analysis: The credit had already accumulated before the amendment. Withdrawal of the facility for further accumulation did not, by itself, extinguish credit already available in the register. The reasoning adopted by the lower authority treating the accumulated credit as having lapsed was not accepted.

Conclusion: The utilisation of accumulated credit was permissible and the demand based on its disallowance was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether duty demand on 8.5 kilos of yarn alleged shortage after re-processing was sustainable.

Analysis: The quantity was stated to represent waste arising in re-processing and was said to have been accounted for in the statutory books. Even otherwise, the yarn was treated as covered by the exemption notification applicable to the product.

Conclusion: The demand on the alleged shortage was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the allegation of clandestine production and removal of texturised yarn was established on the basis of internal memoranda and other material.

Analysis: The internal notes and memoranda were not shown to relate to any definite time frame and, by themselves, were of limited evidentiary value. The department did not secure supporting statements from the authors or recipients of the documents, nor did it produce adequate corroborative evidence to establish surreptitious manufacture and removal. The material relied upon was therefore insufficient to sustain the charge of clandestine clearances.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine production and removal was not proved, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The units were under physical control and clearances were under the D-3 procedure. In that setting, the extended period could not be sustained on the facts found.

Conclusion: The demand was hit by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of duty and penalty was set aside and the appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit already accumulated under a duty-credit scheme does not lapse merely because further accrual is withdrawn, and allegations of clandestine removal must be proved by definite, time-specific and corroborated evidence, failing which the demand cannot be sustained, including on limitation.

---