https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84916 Money credit under Notification No. 45/89-C.E. (N.T.) was confined to the quantity of oil actually subjected to hydrogenation, because the notification expressly linked eligibility to that process and to the date of hydrogenation. The scheme was treated as a subsidy requiring strict construction, so the benefit could not be extended by implication to oil lost during earlier refining or pre-hydrogenation stages. Rule 57M could not enlarge the notification, and an affidavit in another context did not create estoppel against law. On that interpretation, credit beyond the hydrogenated quantity was ineligible and reversal was required. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:37:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84916 Money credit under Notification No. 45/89-C.E. (N.T.) was confined to the quantity of oil actually subjected to hydrogenation, because the notification expressly linked eligibility to that process and to the date of hydrogenation. The scheme was treated as a subsidy requiring strict construction, so the benefit could not be extended by implication to oil lost during earlier refining or pre-hydrogenation stages. Rule 57M could not enlarge the notification, and an affidavit in another context did not create estoppel against law. On that interpretation, credit beyond the hydrogenated quantity was ineligible and reversal was required. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84916