https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87370 Modvat credit was admissible where duty-paying documents were received after the inputs, so long as the inputs were accounted for and credit was taken only after receipt of the documents; the absence of pre-printed serial numbers did not by itself invalidate the certificate. A demand under Rule 57-I issued beyond six months could not invoke the extended period without allegations of suppression or wilful misstatement in the notice, so the delayed demands were time-barred except where specifically within time. The penalty was correspondingly reduced in one matter and set aside in the other, following relief on the duty demand. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:30:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87370 Modvat credit was admissible where duty-paying documents were received after the inputs, so long as the inputs were accounted for and credit was taken only after receipt of the documents; the absence of pre-printed serial numbers did not by itself invalidate the certificate. A demand under Rule 57-I issued beyond six months could not invoke the extended period without allegations of suppression or wilful misstatement in the notice, so the delayed demands were time-barred except where specifically within time. The penalty was correspondingly reduced in one matter and set aside in the other, following relief on the duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87370