https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72737 Credit under Notification No. 201/79 could be used only to the extent it was relatable to finished goods cleared on payment of duty, because the procedure for taking and utilising credit could not expand the substantive exemption. The term "equivalent" required a real correlation between input duty and output duty, though not exact lot-to-lot identification. Credit attributable to inputs used in goods removed without payment of duty under Rule 56B could not be diverted to duty-paid clearances from the factory. The claim for full utilisation of input credit irrespective of such correlation was rejected. en-us Fri, 13 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2011 17:08:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72737 Credit under Notification No. 201/79 could be used only to the extent it was relatable to finished goods cleared on payment of duty, because the procedure for taking and utilising credit could not expand the substantive exemption. The term "equivalent" required a real correlation between input duty and output duty, though not exact lot-to-lot identification. Credit attributable to inputs used in goods removed without payment of duty under Rule 56B could not be diverted to duty-paid clearances from the factory. The claim for full utilisation of input credit irrespective of such correlation was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72737