Modvat credit reversal cannot be demanded after exemption unless the rules clearly require it, and limitation fails without suppression.

Modvat credit validly taken and utilised on inputs was not recoverable merely because the final product later became exempt, since the scheme did not create a one-to-one correlation between inputs and finished goods and no clear rule required reversal in that contingency. The Tribunal also rejected the extended limitation period because the Department could have verified the stock position from its own records, so suppression and intent to evade duty were not established. On that basis, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit taken and utilised on inputs lying in stock could be recovered when the final product became exempt with effect from 1-3-1988. (ii) Whether the demand and penalty were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit taken and utilised on inputs lying in stock could be recovered when the final product became exempt with effect from 1-3-1988.

Analysis: Credit under the Modvat scheme accrued on receipt of inputs and could be utilised immediately. There was no one-to-one co-relation between inputs and final products. The Tribunal compared the scheme with Rule 56A and relied on the view that, where credit was validly taken and utilised when the final product was dutiable, recovery could not be made merely because the final product later became exempt, unless the rules specifically provided for such reversal. The recovery mechanism under Rule 57-I was considered, but the Tribunal concluded that the identical reasoning applied and that, in the absence of a clear provision authorising reversal in this contingency, the departmental demand on merits was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand for reversal of Modvat credit on the stock of inputs and finished goods was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand and penalty were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The extended period was invoked on the footing of alleged suppression for not furnishing stock particulars in time. The Tribunal found that the Department could have obtained the relevant stock figures from its own records, and the delay in issuing the notice after the information was furnished weakened the plea of suppression and intent to evade duty. On that basis, the invocation of the extended period was rejected, and the penalty could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the penalty was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and both the duty demand and the penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where credit is validly taken and utilised under a credit scheme and the rules do not expressly provide for reversal merely because the final product later becomes exempt, the revenue cannot recover the credit in the absence of a clear enabling provision; a limitation plea based on suppression also fails when the Department could ascertain the facts from its own records.

---