https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80483 A demand for reversal or recovery of wrongly availed MODVAT credit under Rule 57-I was treated as a demand for short levy or non-levy to the extent the inadmissible credit had been used towards duty on the final product. The absence of a limitation period in Rule 57-I before the 06-10-1988 amendment did not override the statutory time bar in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The rule had to be read harmoniously with the Act, so recovery proceedings remained subject to the limitation under Section 11A, counted from the relevant date when the Department became aware of the credit. The demands were therefore barred by limitation. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:10:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80483 A demand for reversal or recovery of wrongly availed MODVAT credit under Rule 57-I was treated as a demand for short levy or non-levy to the extent the inadmissible credit had been used towards duty on the final product. The absence of a limitation period in Rule 57-I before the 06-10-1988 amendment did not override the statutory time bar in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The rule had to be read harmoniously with the Act, so recovery proceedings remained subject to the limitation under Section 11A, counted from the relevant date when the Department became aware of the credit. The demands were therefore barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80483