https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155160 A manufacturer could opt out of Notification No. 16/97-C.E. during the financial year and avail Notification No. 38/97-C.E. where the notification and binding Board clarification permitted that choice, and there was no bar on taking Modvat credit under Rule 57A while operating under that notification. Demand and penalties were also unsustainable because the authorities sustained them on a new objection-non-fulfilment of Notification No. 38/97-C.E. conditions-not raised in the show cause notices. The operative principle is that excise demand cannot rest on grounds outside the notice, and the original basis for denial failed once the clarification was applied. en-us Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:48:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155160 A manufacturer could opt out of Notification No. 16/97-C.E. during the financial year and avail Notification No. 38/97-C.E. where the notification and binding Board clarification permitted that choice, and there was no bar on taking Modvat credit under Rule 57A while operating under that notification. Demand and penalties were also unsustainable because the authorities sustained them on a new objection-non-fulfilment of Notification No. 38/97-C.E. conditions-not raised in the show cause notices. The operative principle is that excise demand cannot rest on grounds outside the notice, and the original basis for denial failed once the clarification was applied. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155160