https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202520 Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as conferring discretion to withdraw facilities and impose restrictions once specified offences were prima facie established. The time for forwarding proposals was read as directory because the notification used the phrase "as far as possible", and the related circular was treated as administrative guidance rather than a mandatory condition. The notification was also read on a plain basis to permit imposition of restriction on utilisation of cenvat credit even for an offence under paragraph 1(a). The monetary-threshold objection was rejected as unsupported by the notification and inconsistent with the record. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202520 Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as conferring discretion to withdraw facilities and impose restrictions once specified offences were prima facie established. The time for forwarding proposals was read as directory because the notification used the phrase "as far as possible", and the related circular was treated as administrative guidance rather than a mandatory condition. The notification was also read on a plain basis to permit imposition of restriction on utilisation of cenvat credit even for an offence under paragraph 1(a). The monetary-threshold objection was rejected as unsupported by the notification and inconsistent with the record. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202520