https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99228 Modvat credit taken after the six-month period prescribed by Rule 57G(2) was treated as time-barred, and the maintenance of a separate RG 23A account did not alter the relevant date where it was not shown to have been disclosed and maintained in the manner required under Rule 57G. The departmental authorities had no power to condone the delay, so the claim under Rule 57G(2) was rejected. However, the record contained no finding on the assessee's alternative claim under Rule 57H, and that entitlement had to be examined separately on merits. The matter was therefore remanded for consideration of credit under Rule 57H. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:22:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99228 Modvat credit taken after the six-month period prescribed by Rule 57G(2) was treated as time-barred, and the maintenance of a separate RG 23A account did not alter the relevant date where it was not shown to have been disclosed and maintained in the manner required under Rule 57G. The departmental authorities had no power to condone the delay, so the claim under Rule 57G(2) was rejected. However, the record contained no finding on the assessee's alternative claim under Rule 57H, and that entitlement had to be examined separately on merits. The matter was therefore remanded for consideration of credit under Rule 57H. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99228