https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74236 Set-off of countervailing duty was rejected because the notification did not permit the credit in the manner claimed; prior departmental allowance affected limitation only, not the substantive legality of the set-off. Recovery proceedings were also held to survive the deletion of Rule 10 because Section 11A was treated as its replacement, so pending notices were not extinguished by the statutory change. The Tribunal accepted the more persuasive High Court view for all-India administration and upheld the demand in full. en-us Sun, 11 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:29:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74236 Set-off of countervailing duty was rejected because the notification did not permit the credit in the manner claimed; prior departmental allowance affected limitation only, not the substantive legality of the set-off. Recovery proceedings were also held to survive the deletion of Rule 10 because Section 11A was treated as its replacement, so pending notices were not extinguished by the statutory change. The Tribunal accepted the more persuasive High Court view for all-India administration and upheld the demand in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 11 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74236