https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91378 Notification No. 5/94 was read as allowing credit of the duty actually paid on inputs, not merely the duty that should have been payable under the correct tariff classification. Where inputs were assessed and duty was paid at a higher amount because of a wrong classification, the notification did not permit reversal of the differential credit on the ground of notional excess duty. The credit was therefore not subject to restriction by reference to the lawful incidence of duty, and the order denying full credit was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:19:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91378 Notification No. 5/94 was read as allowing credit of the duty actually paid on inputs, not merely the duty that should have been payable under the correct tariff classification. Where inputs were assessed and duty was paid at a higher amount because of a wrong classification, the notification did not permit reversal of the differential credit on the ground of notional excess duty. The credit was therefore not subject to restriction by reference to the lawful incidence of duty, and the order denying full credit was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91378