https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122737 Under the Modvat scheme, credit equal to the amount debited on removal of inputs was not confined to RG-23A Part-II. Rule 57F(6) required the prescribed debit to be made in the account maintained under Rule 57G(7) or in the current account under Rule 9 or Rule 173G(1), and Rule 57F(7) entitled the manufacturer to take credit of the same amount. On that construction, the expression covered both the RG-23A Part-I/Part-II account and the account current, so credit in the personal ledger account/current account was valid. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:11:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122737 Under the Modvat scheme, credit equal to the amount debited on removal of inputs was not confined to RG-23A Part-II. Rule 57F(6) required the prescribed debit to be made in the account maintained under Rule 57G(7) or in the current account under Rule 9 or Rule 173G(1), and Rule 57F(7) entitled the manufacturer to take credit of the same amount. On that construction, the expression covered both the RG-23A Part-I/Part-II account and the account current, so credit in the personal ledger account/current account was valid. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122737