https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94343 Unlawful credit utilisation was held not to be protected by limitation merely because RT-12 returns and RG-23A records had been filed; actual departmental knowledge of the disputed utilisation had to be shown, and that plea failed. The duty demand was sustained. However, to prevent double payment, corresponding credit in RG-23A Part II was allowed conditionally, subject to verification by the Assistant Collector that the same inputs had supported the relevant clearances. Penalty was imposed for the admitted breach of the credit-utilisation rule, but it was substantially reduced having regard to the facts and circumstances. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:20:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94343 Unlawful credit utilisation was held not to be protected by limitation merely because RT-12 returns and RG-23A records had been filed; actual departmental knowledge of the disputed utilisation had to be shown, and that plea failed. The duty demand was sustained. However, to prevent double payment, corresponding credit in RG-23A Part II was allowed conditionally, subject to verification by the Assistant Collector that the same inputs had supported the relevant clearances. Penalty was imposed for the admitted breach of the credit-utilisation rule, but it was substantially reduced having regard to the facts and circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94343