https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94603 Rule 57-I(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a special Modvat recovery provision that carries no implied limitation period for issuance of notice, so a demand under it was not time-barred. On the merits, once the Department showed a shortage or discrepancy in input records, the burden shifted to the assessee to satisfactorily account for the inputs on which Modvat credit had been taken. As no convincing evidence explained the discrepancy or established physical availability of the inputs, denial of Modvat credit was upheld. The demand therefore survived on both limitation and merits, subject only to verification and requantification for any adjustment already made. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:25:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94603 Rule 57-I(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a special Modvat recovery provision that carries no implied limitation period for issuance of notice, so a demand under it was not time-barred. On the merits, once the Department showed a shortage or discrepancy in input records, the burden shifted to the assessee to satisfactorily account for the inputs on which Modvat credit had been taken. As no convincing evidence explained the discrepancy or established physical availability of the inputs, denial of Modvat credit was upheld. The demand therefore survived on both limitation and merits, subject only to verification and requantification for any adjustment already made. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94603