https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167034 Proforma credit under Rule 56A could not be denied solely because prior D-3 intimation was not given when the duty-paid imported raw material was actually received in the factory, properly accounted for, used in production, and the countervailing duty was later paid after a less-charge demand. The prior notice requirement served verification at receipt, but where receipt, duty-paid character, and consumption were undisputed, the procedural lapse did not defeat the substantive credit entitlement. The later amendment to Rule 56A was also noted as confirming that procedural non-compliance was not invariably fatal. en-us Thu, 21 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:11:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167034 Proforma credit under Rule 56A could not be denied solely because prior D-3 intimation was not given when the duty-paid imported raw material was actually received in the factory, properly accounted for, used in production, and the countervailing duty was later paid after a less-charge demand. The prior notice requirement served verification at receipt, but where receipt, duty-paid character, and consumption were undisputed, the procedural lapse did not defeat the substantive credit entitlement. The later amendment to Rule 56A was also noted as confirming that procedural non-compliance was not invariably fatal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167034