https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96090 Credit on inputs sent to a job worker could not be denied merely because the prescribed debit under Rule 57F(3A) was omitted, where the inputs were admittedly received back and used in manufacture and the substantive object of the rule was achieved. The disallowance of credit was therefore set aside. Penalty was still attracted for procedural non-compliance, but the absence of wilful breach and the accepted bona fides justified reduction of the penalty to a nominal amount. The assessee succeeded on the credit issue, while the procedural penalty was retained only in reduced form. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:01:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96090 Credit on inputs sent to a job worker could not be denied merely because the prescribed debit under Rule 57F(3A) was omitted, where the inputs were admittedly received back and used in manufacture and the substantive object of the rule was achieved. The disallowance of credit was therefore set aside. Penalty was still attracted for procedural non-compliance, but the absence of wilful breach and the accepted bona fides justified reduction of the penalty to a nominal amount. The assessee succeeded on the credit issue, while the procedural penalty was retained only in reduced form. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96090