https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85778 A demand for recovery of wrongly utilised Modvat credit under Rule 57-I was held to be governed by the limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, because rules under the statute are supplementary and the rule did not exclude limitation. As the notice was issued beyond six months from the relevant date, the demand was time-barred and not sustainable. The reasoning also noted that even on a reasonable-time approach, six months would be the applicable period in the circumstances, and the earlier view on the Collector's competence to issue an extended-period notice was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:46:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85778 A demand for recovery of wrongly utilised Modvat credit under Rule 57-I was held to be governed by the limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, because rules under the statute are supplementary and the rule did not exclude limitation. As the notice was issued beyond six months from the relevant date, the demand was time-barred and not sustainable. The reasoning also noted that even on a reasonable-time approach, six months would be the applicable period in the circumstances, and the earlier view on the Collector's competence to issue an extended-period notice was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85778