https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93937 Modvat credit could not be denied for a mere difference in the description of inputs where the goods fell under the same chapter heading, were received and used in manufacture, and classification and duty payment were otherwise in order. The record showed that the variation was only in trade nomenclature, so the approved and revised declarations supported admissibility of credit. A demand for reversal of credit was also held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period and the extended period was not invoked; informal letters from the Superintendent did not extend limitation. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:33:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93937 Modvat credit could not be denied for a mere difference in the description of inputs where the goods fell under the same chapter heading, were received and used in manufacture, and classification and duty payment were otherwise in order. The record showed that the variation was only in trade nomenclature, so the approved and revised declarations supported admissibility of credit. A demand for reversal of credit was also held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period and the extended period was not invoked; informal letters from the Superintendent did not extend limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93937