Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal arising out of the order dated 3.11.2011, passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 169 of 2011, was admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of Input Tax Credit merely on the grounds of technicalities when the selling dealer has shown the sales made to the appellant in his return and has duly deposited the tax on those sales ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Rule 54 are mandatory in nature ?”

2. The dispute is regarding claim of input tax credit for the period from 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the aforesaid period, the appellant purchased various consignments of non-alloy ingots of different quality. The seller of the goods is a unit covered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for