https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72286 Proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be refused merely because the gate pass was not in the claimant's own name, was not endorsed in its favour, or was not supported by a subsidiary gate pass. The rule required proof of receipt of duty-paid inputs, prescribed accounts, and satisfaction of the proper officer as to identity and duty-paid character; it did not impose the additional conditions found in trade notices. Where the inputs were received in original packing, original gate passes were produced, D-3 intimation was filed, and a distributor's certificate confirmed sale to the claimant and no objection to credit, substantial compliance was sufficient and technical objections could not defeat entitlement. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 11:53:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72286 Proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be refused merely because the gate pass was not in the claimant's own name, was not endorsed in its favour, or was not supported by a subsidiary gate pass. The rule required proof of receipt of duty-paid inputs, prescribed accounts, and satisfaction of the proper officer as to identity and duty-paid character; it did not impose the additional conditions found in trade notices. Where the inputs were received in original packing, original gate passes were produced, D-3 intimation was filed, and a distributor's certificate confirmed sale to the claimant and no objection to credit, substantial compliance was sufficient and technical objections could not defeat entitlement. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72286