https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84277 Under the transitional MODVAT scheme, credit on duty-paid inputs lying in stock was not defeated merely because prior permission of the Assistant Collector had not been obtained; the absence of prior permission was treated as a procedural irregularity capable of later verification and regularisation. The exception under Rule 57H was read as overriding the ordinary filing requirements under Rules 57A and 57G where the substantive conditions were met. On limitation, the objection to reversal of MODVAT credit was not accepted as a decisive ground for relief and was rejected. en-us Thu, 27 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:16:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84277 Under the transitional MODVAT scheme, credit on duty-paid inputs lying in stock was not defeated merely because prior permission of the Assistant Collector had not been obtained; the absence of prior permission was treated as a procedural irregularity capable of later verification and regularisation. The exception under Rule 57H was read as overriding the ordinary filing requirements under Rules 57A and 57G where the substantive conditions were met. On limitation, the objection to reversal of MODVAT credit was not accepted as a decisive ground for relief and was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84277