https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332108 Retrospective amendments to Rule 57Q(1) and the lapsing provision in Rule 57S(11) were treated as overriding any claimed entitlement to Modvat credit on capital goods under the compounded levy regime. The framework under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was read as expressing a clear legislative intent to deny such credit to manufacturers paying duty under compounded levy and to make unutilised credit lapse. The earlier vested-right approach based on Eicher Motors was treated as displaced by the later validating and retrospective changes considered in Coral Cosmetics, so the disputed credit was not available. en-us Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332108 Retrospective amendments to Rule 57Q(1) and the lapsing provision in Rule 57S(11) were treated as overriding any claimed entitlement to Modvat credit on capital goods under the compounded levy regime. The framework under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was read as expressing a clear legislative intent to deny such credit to manufacturers paying duty under compounded levy and to make unutilised credit lapse. The earlier vested-right approach based on Eicher Motors was treated as displaced by the later validating and retrospective changes considered in Coral Cosmetics, so the disputed credit was not available. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332108