Procedural lapse in filing Rule 57H declaration cannot justify denial of credit or sustain duty demand and penalty.

Filing a Rule 57H declaration before the Superintendent rather than the Assistant Commissioner was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive default, because the declaration had reached the department and the purpose of stock verification and departmental scrutiny could still be achieved. Credit could not be denied on that technical ground, and the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit could be denied and duty demand sustained merely because the declaration under Rule 57H was filed before the Superintendent of Central Excise instead of the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The requisite declaration had been filed with the Department. Non-filing before the exact authority prescribed by the rule was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive default. The purpose of the declaration, namely verification of raw material stock and departmental scrutiny, was capable of being achieved, and the declaration could have been forwarded internally by the Superintendent. Filing before another Central Excise officer was therefore not treated as a valid ground to deny credit.

Conclusion: Credit could not be denied on the basis of the procedural defect in the place of filing of the declaration, and the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.

---