Modvat credit on duty-paid imports cannot be denied for missing procedural formality when substantive entitlement is proved.

Modvat credit could not be denied where duty-paid inputs imported through the Foreign Post Office were supported by the Appraiser's certificate, because the substantive entitlement under Rule 57A was established and no intervening withdrawal of that evidentiary position was shown for the relevant period. The later amendment and notification were treated as clarificatory and given retrospective effect, so the absence of an expressly prescribed procedural document did not defeat credit. The certificate issued by the Foreign Post Office Appraiser was therefore accepted as a valid basis for Modvat credit, and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on imports through Foreign Post Office merely because the Appraiser's certificate was not specifically prescribed for the relevant period, and whether the later amendment and notification should operate retrospectively.

Analysis: Rule 57A permitted Modvat credit where duty had been paid on the inputs. The evidence showed that the goods were imported through post parcels and that duty payment was by the competent authority's certificate. The earlier administrative practice and notifications indicated that such certificates had been treated as valid documents, and no intervening notification was shown to have withdrawn that position for the relevant period. In these circumstances, the subsequent amendment was treated as clarificatory and the later notification was held to merit retrospective effect so that credit was not denied for want of a procedural document where the substantive entitlement existed.

Conclusion: The certificate issued by the Foreign Post Office Appraiser was accepted as a valid basis for Modvat credit and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid inputs are established and a competent authority's certificate evidences that fact, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because a specific document was not expressly prescribed for the relevant interregnum, especially when the later amendment is treated as clarificatory and retrospective.

---