https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99635 An exemption notification providing set-off against duty paid on Item 68 inputs required proof linking the inputs received and used to the duty paid, so the admissible set-off could be determined. For the initial period, the absence of evidence showing receipt and utilisation of the inputs justified rejection of the claim. After the amending notification, furnishing a statement of the quantity of inputs used in manufacturing each unit of the finished goods became an express condition, and the refund claim for the later period also failed because that statement was not produced. The input-use statement was treated as mandatory for entitlement to refund or set-off. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:36:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99635 An exemption notification providing set-off against duty paid on Item 68 inputs required proof linking the inputs received and used to the duty paid, so the admissible set-off could be determined. For the initial period, the absence of evidence showing receipt and utilisation of the inputs justified rejection of the claim. After the amending notification, furnishing a statement of the quantity of inputs used in manufacturing each unit of the finished goods became an express condition, and the refund claim for the later period also failed because that statement was not produced. The input-use statement was treated as mandatory for entitlement to refund or set-off. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99635