MODVAT credit recovery and limitation under Section 11A require specific suppression allegations to invoke the extended period.

Recovery of MODVAT credit was treated as subject to the limitation under Section 11A, so a demand raised beyond six months was prima facie time-barred. The extended period could not be invoked because the show cause notice did not contain specific allegations of suppression or misdeclaration, and a mere reference to Rule 173Q was insufficient to cure that defect. The text also notes that if the extended period was intended to be applied, the notice had to be issued by the competent authority. On that basis, unconditional stay was granted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for recovery of MODVAT credit was prima facie barred by limitation under Section 11A, and whether unconditional stay should be granted.

Analysis: The demand related to recovery of MODVAT credit for a period beyond six months, while the show cause notice did not contain a specific allegation of suppression or misdeclaration sufficient to attract the extended period. The presence of a reference to Rule 173Q was not enough to cure the absence of the necessary allegations, and if the extended period was intended to be invoked, the notice had to be issued by the competent authority. The applicable limitation under Section 11A was held to govern recovery of MODVAT credit as well.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be prima facie time-barred, and unconditional stay was granted in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of MODVAT credit is subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 11A, and invocation of the extended period requires specific allegations of suppression or misdeclaration in the notice.

---