Modvat credit limitation cannot be imported by implication when the relevant rule prescribes no time limit.

A six-month limitation inserted in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied prospectively from 29-6-1995 and could not be read into claims under Rule 57H(1B). Because Rule 57H(1B) itself prescribed no specific time limit, credit could not be denied by importing the limitation from another provision by implication. The governing principle is that a limitation period must arise from the text of the rule itself, and absent such prescription, the claim remains maintainable. The assessee was therefore entitled to Modvat credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation period introduced in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be applied to a claim for Modvat credit under Rule 57H(1B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether credit could be denied for want of a specific time limit in Rule 57H(1B).

Analysis: The amendment introducing a six-month limitation in Rule 57G operated prospectively from 29-6-1995. Before that amendment, no statutory period of limitation was prescribed for the relevant claim. The Court relied on the principle that a period of limitation cannot be imported by implication where the rule itself does not prescribe one. Since Rule 57H(1B) did not contain a specific time limit, the restriction found in Rule 57G could not be read into it.

Conclusion: The limitation of six months under Rule 57G was not applicable to a claim under Rule 57H(1B), and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---