https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88512 A reference application under Section 35G was held maintainable even though part of the main appeal had been remanded, because the limitation issue had been finally decided against the assessee and was not disturbed by the remand. The Tribunal also noted that, for Modvat credit recovery under Rule 57-I before 6-10-1988, the rule did not specify the starting point of limitation, and there was conflicting authority on whether time ran from the date credit was taken or from filing of RT 12. On that basis, the limitation question was treated as a live question of law fit for reference. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:17:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88512 A reference application under Section 35G was held maintainable even though part of the main appeal had been remanded, because the limitation issue had been finally decided against the assessee and was not disturbed by the remand. The Tribunal also noted that, for Modvat credit recovery under Rule 57-I before 6-10-1988, the rule did not specify the starting point of limitation, and there was conflicting authority on whether time ran from the date credit was taken or from filing of RT 12. On that basis, the limitation question was treated as a live question of law fit for reference. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88512