https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83216 Rule 56A proforma credit remained subject to the proviso to Rule 56A(2), and the non obstante wording in Rule 56A(1) did not dispense with the requirement that duty be paid on material falling under the same tariff item as the finished excisable goods. Because the raw materials and asbestos cement products were classified under different tariff items, the statutory condition for credit was not met and credit was held inadmissible. The alternative construction advanced for a broader entitlement from the date of application was rejected, as the proviso operated independently and imposed a mandatory eligibility condition. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83216 Rule 56A proforma credit remained subject to the proviso to Rule 56A(2), and the non obstante wording in Rule 56A(1) did not dispense with the requirement that duty be paid on material falling under the same tariff item as the finished excisable goods. Because the raw materials and asbestos cement products were classified under different tariff items, the statutory condition for credit was not met and credit was held inadmissible. The alternative construction advanced for a broader entitlement from the date of application was rejected, as the proviso operated independently and imposed a mandatory eligibility condition. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83216