https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87094 Credit taken under Rule 56A could not be treated as merely provisional once permission to avail proforma credit had been granted, and recovery had to be made within the rule-prescribed period from the date of taking credit. In the absence of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period. Non-production of duty-paying documents and alleged non-compliance with Rule 56A did not by itself justify recovery where delivery challans and D-3 intimations showed no concealment. The majority view therefore treated the demand as time-barred and unsustainable on the alleged compliance breach. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:07:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87094 Credit taken under Rule 56A could not be treated as merely provisional once permission to avail proforma credit had been granted, and recovery had to be made within the rule-prescribed period from the date of taking credit. In the absence of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period. Non-production of duty-paying documents and alleged non-compliance with Rule 56A did not by itself justify recovery where delivery challans and D-3 intimations showed no concealment. The majority view therefore treated the demand as time-barred and unsustainable on the alleged compliance breach. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87094