Substantive proforma credit cannot be denied on a technical description mismatch when the department had full notice; stale demand also fails.

Proforma credit under Rule 56A could not be denied merely because duty-paid blooms were described as axle blooms in the application, where tariff treatment showed both as the same commodity and the department had full notice through D-3 intimations. The distinction was treated as hyper-technical and insufficient to defeat substantive entitlement to credit. The demand for reversal was also time-barred because the credit was taken in March 1983 and the show-cause notice was issued on 23-12-1983. On both merits and limitation, the duty demand and reversal of credit were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit on duty-paid blooms could be denied on the ground that the application described them as axle blooms instead of blooms simpliciter under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. (ii) Whether the demand for reversal of credit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether credit on duty-paid blooms could be denied on the ground that the application described them as axle blooms instead of blooms simpliciter under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The tariff description treated blooms and axle blooms as the same commodity. The assessee had disclosed receipt of the steel blooms through D-3 intimations, and the department was not misled. Denial of credit on this distinction was held to be purely technical and without legal basis, since the substantive entitlement to proforma credit could not be defeated by the wording used in the application.

Conclusion: The denial of proforma credit was unjustified and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for reversal of credit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The credit had been taken in March 1983, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 23-12-1983. On these facts, the demand was held to be time-barred.

Conclusion: The demand for reversal of credit was barred by limitation and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both merits and limitation, and the duty demand and reversal of credit were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive fiscal benefit cannot be denied on a hyper-technical description where the department had full notice of the goods, and a stale demand issued beyond the permissible period is barred by time.

---