https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110613 A wrongly availed credit may be rectified where it arose from a clerical mistake, and the rules did not prohibit taking supplementary credit for the correct excise duty component. The record showed that the original entry reflected sales tax rather than excise duty, and the rectification was consistent with the duty to maintain accurate accounts under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On limitation, demands for reversal had to be tested under the governing statutory time limits, and there was no basis to compute limitation from the date of the appellate order. The impugned demand was therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:21:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110613 A wrongly availed credit may be rectified where it arose from a clerical mistake, and the rules did not prohibit taking supplementary credit for the correct excise duty component. The record showed that the original entry reflected sales tax rather than excise duty, and the rectification was consistent with the duty to maintain accurate accounts under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On limitation, demands for reversal had to be tested under the governing statutory time limits, and there was no basis to compute limitation from the date of the appellate order. The impugned demand was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110613