https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104476 Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was examined in the context of alleged Modvat credit availed through a supporting manufacturer who was not registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. The text states that, because the supporting manufacturer was unregistered and could not have taken Modvat credit, denial of the notification benefit on that ground was not justified. It further explains that where exemption had already been granted at clearance, the department had to establish the factual basis for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act; a bare assertion of non-production of evidence was insufficient. On that reasoning, the notice was time-barred. en-us Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:27:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104476 Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was examined in the context of alleged Modvat credit availed through a supporting manufacturer who was not registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. The text states that, because the supporting manufacturer was unregistered and could not have taken Modvat credit, denial of the notification benefit on that ground was not justified. It further explains that where exemption had already been granted at clearance, the department had to establish the factual basis for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act; a bare assertion of non-production of evidence was insufficient. On that reasoning, the notice was time-barred. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104476