https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86262 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs were entered in RG 23A Part I and Part II after a delay, since Rule 57G did not prescribe any specific time limit for taking credit. The inputs were received in the factory, duty had been paid, and they were used in manufacture; the only objection was the gap between receipt and register entry. Rule 57I dealt with wrongly availed or irregularly utilised credit and did not itself create a limitation period. On the facts, the record showed sufficient compliance with the scheme, so the credit remained admissible to the assessee. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:54:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86262 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs were entered in RG 23A Part I and Part II after a delay, since Rule 57G did not prescribe any specific time limit for taking credit. The inputs were received in the factory, duty had been paid, and they were used in manufacture; the only objection was the gap between receipt and register entry. Rule 57I dealt with wrongly availed or irregularly utilised credit and did not itself create a limitation period. On the facts, the record showed sufficient compliance with the scheme, so the credit remained admissible to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86262