https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81709 Before amendment of Rule 57-I, recovery of wrongly availed MODVAT credit had to follow the limitation under Section 11A, so a demand issued beyond that period was time-barred absent sustainable suppression. In addition, goods cleared under an exemption notification were not automatically treated as non-duty-paid or as goods charged to nil rate of duty for denying deemed MODVAT credit. The department had to establish that the inputs came from a non-duty-paid stream, and exemption by notification alone was insufficient to disallow credit. The impugned demand was therefore unsustainable on both limitation and merits. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81709 Before amendment of Rule 57-I, recovery of wrongly availed MODVAT credit had to follow the limitation under Section 11A, so a demand issued beyond that period was time-barred absent sustainable suppression. In addition, goods cleared under an exemption notification were not automatically treated as non-duty-paid or as goods charged to nil rate of duty for denying deemed MODVAT credit. The department had to establish that the inputs came from a non-duty-paid stream, and exemption by notification alone was insufficient to disallow credit. The impugned demand was therefore unsustainable on both limitation and merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81709