Recredit of duty cannot be denied for non-intimation where cancellation was recorded and the debit required only regularisation.

Recredit of duty was upheld where an invoice was only half prepared, the goods were not shown to have been cleared, and the cancellation of the customer order was recorded in the monthly RT 12 return. The omission to give a separate intimation to the Assistant Commissioner was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar, because the rule on intimation of cancellation applied to duty debited from PLA, whereas the debit here was made from RG23A Part II and required only regularisation. On that basis, non-intimation alone could not defeat recredit of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to recredit of duty debited in respect of a cancelled invoice despite of separate intimation to the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The invoice in question was found to be only half prepared and the goods were not shown to have been cleared under it. The cancellation of the customer order was recorded in the monthly RT 12 return, and the omission to give a separate intimation was treated as a procedural and technical lapse. It was also noted that the rule requiring intimation of cancellation applied to duty debited from PLA, whereas here the debit was made from RG23A Part II, so the entry required only regularisation.

Conclusion: The recredit could not be denied on the ground of non-intimation, and the assessee's recredit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in intimating cancellation will not by itself defeat recredit of duty where the cancellation is otherwise recorded and the debit is only a matter of book regularisation.

---