https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84789 Modvat credit recovery for allegedly wrongful availment was treated as time-barred where the department had contemporaneous knowledge of the inputs, manufacture and clearances, and no suppression, misstatement or collusion was shown. In the absence of an express limitation in Rule 57-I, a reasonable period of limitation was read into the rule, so recovery could not proceed beyond that period. Duty demands on cables complete cleared as spares also failed on the facts because non-declaration as a finished product did not, by itself, justify invocation of the extended limitation under Section 11A when the department knew of the clearances and duty was debited through RG 23A Part II. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:52:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84789 Modvat credit recovery for allegedly wrongful availment was treated as time-barred where the department had contemporaneous knowledge of the inputs, manufacture and clearances, and no suppression, misstatement or collusion was shown. In the absence of an express limitation in Rule 57-I, a reasonable period of limitation was read into the rule, so recovery could not proceed beyond that period. Duty demands on cables complete cleared as spares also failed on the facts because non-declaration as a finished product did not, by itself, justify invocation of the extended limitation under Section 11A when the department knew of the clearances and duty was debited through RG 23A Part II. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84789