https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89801 Proforma credit under Rule 56A could not be denied merely because the notification continued to cite the old tariff sub-heading after the classification changed, where the final product and raw material remained the same. The later corrective amendment showed that the incorrect reference was inadvertent, and the benefit intended for the same product remained substantively available. The omission was treated as clerical, so entitlement to proforma credit for the disputed period was upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:31:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89801 Proforma credit under Rule 56A could not be denied merely because the notification continued to cite the old tariff sub-heading after the classification changed, where the final product and raw material remained the same. The later corrective amendment showed that the incorrect reference was inadvertent, and the benefit intended for the same product remained substantively available. The omission was treated as clerical, so entitlement to proforma credit for the disputed period was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89801