https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47529 A wrong citation of the credit provision does not by itself defeat an assessee's claim if the substantive entitlement is otherwise available. The Court explained that Rule 56A(9) prevents double benefit under Rules 56A and 57A, but that restriction must be read in context; a book entry under one provision is not necessarily conclusive taking of credit if that provision is later found inapplicable and the credit is sought to be returned. The assessee was therefore not barred merely because Rule 57A had initially been invoked, and the matter was remitted for fresh examination of entitlement under Rule 56A(8), including whether its procedural requirements were satisfied. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47529 A wrong citation of the credit provision does not by itself defeat an assessee's claim if the substantive entitlement is otherwise available. The Court explained that Rule 56A(9) prevents double benefit under Rules 56A and 57A, but that restriction must be read in context; a book entry under one provision is not necessarily conclusive taking of credit if that provision is later found inapplicable and the credit is sought to be returned. The assessee was therefore not barred merely because Rule 57A had initially been invoked, and the matter was remitted for fresh examination of entitlement under Rule 56A(8), including whether its procedural requirements were satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47529