Modvat credit timeliness under Rule 57G(2) was rejected, while alternative entitlement under Rule 57H required separate examination.

Modvat credit taken after the six-month period prescribed by Rule 57G(2) was treated as time-barred, and the maintenance of a separate RG 23A account did not alter the relevant date where it was not shown to have been disclosed and maintained in the manner required under Rule 57G. The departmental authorities had no power to condone the delay, so the claim under Rule 57G(2) was rejected. However, the record contained no finding on the assessee's alternative claim under Rule 57H, and that entitlement had to be examined separately on merits. The matter was therefore remanded for consideration of credit under Rule 57H.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit taken beyond six months from the date of invoices was admissible under Rule 57G(2), and whether the assessee's claim for credit under Rule 57H required examination.

Analysis: The credit was admittedly taken after the six-month period prescribed for availing Modvat credit. The separate RG 23A account maintained by the assessee did not alter the relevant date for determining timeliness, particularly when it was not shown to have been disclosed and maintained in the manner required under Rule 57G. The departmental authorities were not empowered to condone the delay. At the same time, the record did not contain a finding on the assessee's alternative entitlement under Rule 57H, and that claim required a separate examination on merits.

Conclusion: The claim for Modvat credit under Rule 57G(2) was rejected. The matter was remanded for examination of admissibility of credit under Rule 57H.

---