https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88860 Modvat credit demands under Rule 57-I had to be raised within six months of taking credit; a reversal notice issued beyond that period was time-barred. Credit also remained available where gate passes and the Modvat declaration described the same H.R. coils/strips, despite a mismatch in tariff sub-heading. The classification discrepancy was a minor procedural error because the inputs were duty-paid, received, and used in manufacturing the declared final products. Substantive compliance with credit conditions prevented denial solely for an incorrect or inconsistent sub-heading, resulting in the credit denial and consequential order being set aside. en-us Fri, 22 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88860 Modvat credit demands under Rule 57-I had to be raised within six months of taking credit; a reversal notice issued beyond that period was time-barred. Credit also remained available where gate passes and the Modvat declaration described the same H.R. coils/strips, despite a mismatch in tariff sub-heading. The classification discrepancy was a minor procedural error because the inputs were duty-paid, received, and used in manufacturing the declared final products. Substantive compliance with credit conditions prevented denial solely for an incorrect or inconsistent sub-heading, resulting in the credit denial and consequential order being set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88860