Modvat credit on returned defective goods: procedural lapse alone cannot defeat substantive entitlement where duty had been paid originally.

Modvat credit on returned defective goods was treated as admissible where the goods were originally duty paid, the duty incidence had not been reversed on return, and the proper officer had certified their duty-paid nature. Non-compliance with the prescribed return procedure under Rule 57F(1)(ii) was viewed as a procedural defect that could have been regularised through the invoice-based process. In the absence of fraud or evasion, substantive credit entitlement was not denied merely for procedural lapse, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be allowed on returned defective goods when the prescribed return procedure was not followed, but the duty incidence on the goods had not been reversed and the duty paid nature of the goods was certified by the proper officer.

Analysis: The returned castings were undisputedly duty paid when originally cleared and the duty burden had not been vacated on return. Although the goods were not returned in strict compliance with Rule 57F(1)(ii) and the situation could have been regularised through the proper invoice-based procedure, the defect was held to be procedural. In the absence of fraud or evasion, the substantive entitlement to credit was not to be denied merely for non-observance of the prescribed procedure. The order of the appellate authority was therefore found to reflect a correct broad and judicial approach.

Conclusion: The credit was held admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---