https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73503 Rebate or credit under Notification No. 203/72 was not to be denied merely because there was no production in the corresponding month of the base year; production in the relevant year remained eligible for the benefit, and the credit already taken could be retained. A demand for recredit had to be tested under Rule 10, not Rule 10A, and where the notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period, the recovery could not be sustained. The stated principle is that the correct limitation provision governs recovery of excise credit, and time-bar will defeat an untimely demand. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:44:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73503 Rebate or credit under Notification No. 203/72 was not to be denied merely because there was no production in the corresponding month of the base year; production in the relevant year remained eligible for the benefit, and the credit already taken could be retained. A demand for recredit had to be tested under Rule 10, not Rule 10A, and where the notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period, the recovery could not be sustained. The stated principle is that the correct limitation provision governs recovery of excise credit, and time-bar will defeat an untimely demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73503