https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85735 Proforma credit could not be denied merely because the entry was omitted in RG 23 Part I when the D-3 declaration had been filed and receipt and utilisation of the goods were not disputed. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive violation, and was capable of rectification. In the absence of any challenge to the actual movement, receipt, or use of the goods, the procedural default did not justify reversal of the credit, leaving the assessee entitled to avail proforma credit. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 17:51:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85735 Proforma credit could not be denied merely because the entry was omitted in RG 23 Part I when the D-3 declaration had been filed and receipt and utilisation of the goods were not disputed. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive violation, and was capable of rectification. In the absence of any challenge to the actual movement, receipt, or use of the goods, the procedural default did not justify reversal of the credit, leaving the assessee entitled to avail proforma credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85735