https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72467 A later order withdrawing proforma credit was treated by the majority as a review, not a mere rectification, because it altered the basis of eligibility rather than correcting any clerical or apparent error. On the rule governing proforma credit, the majority considered the power to grant and vary credit as authorising modification where credit had been wrongly allowed, while the dissent regarded the power as quasi-judicial and not exercisable to withdraw earlier relief. On notice, the majority held that no separate show cause notice was required for such withdrawal under the credit scheme, whereas the dissent stressed natural justice. The case turned on the statutory mechanism for varying wrongly granted credit. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 17:14:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72467 A later order withdrawing proforma credit was treated by the majority as a review, not a mere rectification, because it altered the basis of eligibility rather than correcting any clerical or apparent error. On the rule governing proforma credit, the majority considered the power to grant and vary credit as authorising modification where credit had been wrongly allowed, while the dissent regarded the power as quasi-judicial and not exercisable to withdraw earlier relief. On notice, the majority held that no separate show cause notice was required for such withdrawal under the credit scheme, whereas the dissent stressed natural justice. The case turned on the statutory mechanism for varying wrongly granted credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72467