https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40459 Rule 56-A did not authorise recovery of proforma credit merely because the recipient manufacturer had not produced the prescribed documents, since the recovery proviso applied only where duty paid by the primary manufacturer was later varied and refund or further recovery followed. The later amendment confirmed that the existing rule did not cover that situation. The alleged default was also only technical and bona fide: the goods were duty paid, credit had been accepted at assessment, and no fraud, collusion, evasion, or conscious disregard was shown. Recovery and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 02 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 May 2010 13:22:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40459 Rule 56-A did not authorise recovery of proforma credit merely because the recipient manufacturer had not produced the prescribed documents, since the recovery proviso applied only where duty paid by the primary manufacturer was later varied and refund or further recovery followed. The later amendment confirmed that the existing rule did not cover that situation. The alleged default was also only technical and bona fide: the goods were duty paid, credit had been accepted at assessment, and no fraud, collusion, evasion, or conscious disregard was shown. Recovery and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40459