https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90936 A manufacturer could not simultaneously avail Notification No. 175/86 for some goods and use Modvat credit for other goods, because the governing interpretation treated the two benefits as mutually exclusive for the same manufacturer; the demand was therefore upheld on that point. A demand based on provisions not properly invoked in the show cause notice was also sustained, as Rule 57-I did not apply to duty-free clearances and Rule 9(2) could not be used absent clandestine removal or any allegation of suppression; the wrong-provision objection was not enough to invalidate the demand. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:37:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90936 A manufacturer could not simultaneously avail Notification No. 175/86 for some goods and use Modvat credit for other goods, because the governing interpretation treated the two benefits as mutually exclusive for the same manufacturer; the demand was therefore upheld on that point. A demand based on provisions not properly invoked in the show cause notice was also sustained, as Rule 57-I did not apply to duty-free clearances and Rule 9(2) could not be used absent clandestine removal or any allegation of suppression; the wrong-provision objection was not enough to invalidate the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90936