https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49144 Rebate under Rule 12 was confined to duty lawfully paid on exported goods, so amounts debited through R.G. 23A Part-II or PLA for goods wholly exempt from duty did not qualify as excise duty paid. Where the final product was fully exempt, the debit was treated only as a deposit and not a levy authorised by law, consistent with Article 265. The Modvat scheme could not be used to indirectly obtain credit or rebate that Rule 57C barred for exempt goods. Reliance on trade notices and promissory estoppel also failed because administrative instructions could not override the statutory position. en-us Thu, 22 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:10:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49144 Rebate under Rule 12 was confined to duty lawfully paid on exported goods, so amounts debited through R.G. 23A Part-II or PLA for goods wholly exempt from duty did not qualify as excise duty paid. Where the final product was fully exempt, the debit was treated only as a deposit and not a levy authorised by law, consistent with Article 265. The Modvat scheme could not be used to indirectly obtain credit or rebate that Rule 57C barred for exempt goods. Reliance on trade notices and promissory estoppel also failed because administrative instructions could not override the statutory position. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49144