https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80491 For recovery of irregular Modvat credit, where Rule 57(I) did not prescribe a separate time limit, the limitation under Section 11A governed the demand. The relevant date was held to be the filing of the RT-12 return, because that was the first effective opportunity for the department to detect the irregular credit; the date on which credit was taken was not the governing date. The argument that Modvat credit was equivalent to refund was rejected, as refund has a distinct statutory meaning. The matter was remanded to determine the actual RT-12 filing date and whether the show cause notice fell within six months. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:29:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80491 For recovery of irregular Modvat credit, where Rule 57(I) did not prescribe a separate time limit, the limitation under Section 11A governed the demand. The relevant date was held to be the filing of the RT-12 return, because that was the first effective opportunity for the department to detect the irregular credit; the date on which credit was taken was not the governing date. The argument that Modvat credit was equivalent to refund was rejected, as refund has a distinct statutory meaning. The matter was remanded to determine the actual RT-12 filing date and whether the show cause notice fell within six months. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80491