Documentary proof is essential for duty relief; unsupported challans, delayed explanations, and unverified price reductions fail.

Statutory relief under Rule 57F(2) required proper receipt challans to correlate goods sent and received back, and transporter or lorry challans alone were insufficient; the claim was disallowed. A demand was upheld where the assessee's explanation that inputs were scattered in the factory was raised only later and treated as an afterthought, with no convincing contemporaneous explanation given at inspection. A deduction for reduced aluminium extrusion prices was also rejected because the reduction was supported only by telephonic discussions and not by letters or other evidence from customers; unsupported claims and documentary gaps defeated all relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to the claim under Rule 57F(2) without producing the prescribed receipt challans; (ii) Whether the demand of Rs. 37,973/- could be rejected on the basis that the inputs were allegedly scattered in the factory premises at the time of verification; (iii) Whether the reduction in price of aluminium extrusion could be deducted from duty in the absence of supporting evidence from customers.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to the claim under Rule 57F(2) without producing the prescribed receipt challans.

Analysis: The prescribed challans under Rule 57F(2) were necessary to correlate the goods sent and received back, as they carried the relevant endorsement of the proper officer. Transporters' challans and lorry challans alone were insufficient to establish such correlation.

Conclusion: The claim was not admissible and was rightly disallowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of Rs. 37,973/- could be rejected on the basis that the inputs were allegedly scattered in the factory premises at the time of verification.

Analysis: The explanation was raised much later and not at the time of inspection. The delayed explanation was treated as an afterthought, and the assessee had not shown any convincing reason for not informing the officers when the premises was visited.

Conclusion: The plea was rejected and the demand was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the reduction in price of aluminium extrusion could be deducted from duty in the absence of supporting evidence from customers.

Analysis: A reduction in price based only on telephonic discussions was not sufficient. In the absence of letters or other evidence from customers confirming the reduction, the claim for deduction could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The deduction claim was disallowed.

Final Conclusion: All substantive claims raised by the assessee failed, and the appellate challenge was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory benefit or deduction depends on documentary correlation or proof, the assessee must establish the claim by reliable evidence; unsupported explanations or later explanations treated as afterthoughts are insufficient.

---