https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88904 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the credit was taken after 30-6-1994 where the inputs moved under the job-work procedure in Rule 57J and Rule 57F(3). The prescribed movement through subsidiary challans under Rule 57F(3) read with Notification No. 351/86 governed the transaction, and Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) could not override that procedural framework by imposing a cut-off date for documents issued before 1-4-1994. As no time limit for return of intermediate products from the job worker was provided under Rule 57F, the notification was held inapplicable to deny credit. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:25:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88904 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the credit was taken after 30-6-1994 where the inputs moved under the job-work procedure in Rule 57J and Rule 57F(3). The prescribed movement through subsidiary challans under Rule 57F(3) read with Notification No. 351/86 governed the transaction, and Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.) could not override that procedural framework by imposing a cut-off date for documents issued before 1-4-1994. As no time limit for return of intermediate products from the job worker was provided under Rule 57F, the notification was held inapplicable to deny credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88904