https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1372 Recredit of duty was upheld where an invoice was only half prepared, the goods were not shown to have been cleared, and the cancellation of the customer order was recorded in the monthly RT 12 return. The omission to give a separate intimation to the Assistant Commissioner was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar, because the rule on intimation of cancellation applied to duty debited from PLA, whereas the debit here was made from RG23A Part II and required only regularisation. On that basis, non-intimation alone could not defeat recredit of duty. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1372 Recredit of duty was upheld where an invoice was only half prepared, the goods were not shown to have been cleared, and the cancellation of the customer order was recorded in the monthly RT 12 return. The omission to give a separate intimation to the Assistant Commissioner was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar, because the rule on intimation of cancellation applied to duty debited from PLA, whereas the debit here was made from RG23A Part II and required only regularisation. On that basis, non-intimation alone could not defeat recredit of duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1372