https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81157 The Gujarat HC noted that the unamended Rule 57-I was not unconstitutional merely because it did not expressly prescribe a limitation period or a hearing requirement: a reasonable limitation could be read in, and natural justice was implicit unless excluded. It further stated that the 6 October 1988 amendment did not abate pending MODVAT credit recovery proceedings or attract Section 11A, because Rule 57-I was the special provision governing wrongful credit and the general recovery provision could not displace it. The amendment was treated as clarificatory, not as creating an implied amnesty. en-us Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81157 The Gujarat HC noted that the unamended Rule 57-I was not unconstitutional merely because it did not expressly prescribe a limitation period or a hearing requirement: a reasonable limitation could be read in, and natural justice was implicit unless excluded. It further stated that the 6 October 1988 amendment did not abate pending MODVAT credit recovery proceedings or attract Section 11A, because Rule 57-I was the special provision governing wrongful credit and the general recovery provision could not displace it. The amendment was treated as clarificatory, not as creating an implied amnesty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81157