https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2018 Under Rule 9A, credit was unavailable where goods were received directly from processors on invoices showing nil duty, because the case fell within Rule 9A(1) rather than Rule 9A(2), which applies only when duty-paying documents are not producible. The duty and interest demand was therefore sustained and the credit claim failed. Penalty under Section 11AC was nevertheless set aside because the dispute involved interpretation of the credit scheme and the demand was raised within the normal limitation period, so the statutory ingredients for penalty were not made out. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2018 Under Rule 9A, credit was unavailable where goods were received directly from processors on invoices showing nil duty, because the case fell within Rule 9A(1) rather than Rule 9A(2), which applies only when duty-paying documents are not producible. The duty and interest demand was therefore sustained and the credit claim failed. Penalty under Section 11AC was nevertheless set aside because the dispute involved interpretation of the credit scheme and the demand was raised within the normal limitation period, so the statutory ingredients for penalty were not made out. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2018