Higher notional credit survives rescission when the rule creates the entitlement and the notification only measures the credit.

Rule 57B conferred the substantive right to take credit at a higher notional rate, while paragraph 5 of Notification No. 175/86 only fixed the extent of that credit for goods cleared under the notification. Where inputs had originally borne duty under the notification, the later rescission of the notification did not extinguish the credit already earned. The entitlement remained governed by the rule, and the notification's cessation did not defeat credit validly taken on goods cleared while it was in force. The objection to the higher notional credit therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit under Rule 57B read with paragraph 5 of Notification No. 175/86 could be taken at the higher notional rate even after the notification had been rescinded, where the duty on the inputs had been originally paid under that notification.

Analysis: Rule 57B provided the substantive authority for taking credit at a rate higher than the duty actually paid, and paragraph 5 of the notification identified the extent of such higher credit for goods cleared under the notification. The notification did not itself create the entitlement to credit, but only indicated the measure of credit available under the rule. Once the goods had been cleared on payment of duty under the notification, the user's entitlement to the higher credit remained governed by Rule 57B, and that entitlement was not lost merely because the notification had later ceased to operate.

Conclusion: The higher notional credit was validly taken and the objection to credit failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the rule confers the right to credit and the notification only specifies the extent of that credit, rescission of the notification does not extinguish credit already earned in respect of goods cleared under it.

---