https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113765 Deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because it was availed after clearance of the final products, since the notification did not prescribe a time-limit or require simultaneous taking of credit. A construction that made late availment fatal would cut down the substantive benefit intended by the notification. A separate denial based only on a register entry showing utilisation was also unsustainable, because there was no supporting evidence of actual use of the credit against clearance documents. The discussion therefore confirms that beneficial credit entitlements must be read according to the notification's text and cannot be defeated by unsupported assumptions. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2012 13:05:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113765 Deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because it was availed after clearance of the final products, since the notification did not prescribe a time-limit or require simultaneous taking of credit. A construction that made late availment fatal would cut down the substantive benefit intended by the notification. A separate denial based only on a register entry showing utilisation was also unsustainable, because there was no supporting evidence of actual use of the credit against clearance documents. The discussion therefore confirms that beneficial credit entitlements must be read according to the notification's text and cannot be defeated by unsupported assumptions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113765