https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42214 Rule 56A required the prescribed documents to prove excise-duty payment on steel sheets and plates, and invoices alone were not accepted as a substitute. The plea of substantial compliance was rejected because the rule did not leave discretion to accept other evidence in place of the specified proof. The proviso to Rule 56A(3), however, allowed the Central Government to treat specified stocks as duty-paid and permit credit on conditions it prescribed, so claims for stocks lying with the petitioners after the relevant date were to be examined under that proviso in accordance with government directions. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:07:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42214 Rule 56A required the prescribed documents to prove excise-duty payment on steel sheets and plates, and invoices alone were not accepted as a substitute. The plea of substantial compliance was rejected because the rule did not leave discretion to accept other evidence in place of the specified proof. The proviso to Rule 56A(3), however, allowed the Central Government to treat specified stocks as duty-paid and permit credit on conditions it prescribed, so claims for stocks lying with the petitioners after the relevant date were to be examined under that proviso in accordance with government directions. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42214