https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114155 Credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules could not be denied merely because the duty-paying certificate did not accompany the goods at the time of receipt, where the certificate was later produced and was shown to relate to the same consignment. The rule, as then framed, required a duty-paying document to support the goods, and the later amendment's wording showed a distinction between physical accompaniment and documentary coverage. Since the goods were identifiable, duty-paid, received in the factory, and used as inputs, the initial absence of the certificate was only a procedural defect capable of cure, and the objection to credit was not sustainable. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 17:16:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114155 Credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules could not be denied merely because the duty-paying certificate did not accompany the goods at the time of receipt, where the certificate was later produced and was shown to relate to the same consignment. The rule, as then framed, required a duty-paying document to support the goods, and the later amendment's wording showed a distinction between physical accompaniment and documentary coverage. Since the goods were identifiable, duty-paid, received in the factory, and used as inputs, the initial absence of the certificate was only a procedural defect capable of cure, and the objection to credit was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114155