https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369672 The Madras HC held that a show cause notice demanding reversal of Modvat credit taken during 1994-95 was unsustainable because the credit had been availed under protest and the Department had raised no contemporaneous objection. Section 5-B of the Central Excise Act was only an enabling provision for notification, so the absence of a notification could not be used against the assessee. Rule 57-I was treated as a recovery mechanism for wrongly availed credit, but a 2010 demand for 1994-95 credit was beyond time and arbitrary on the facts. The writ petition was maintainable despite alternate remedy, and the notice was quashed. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:52:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369672 The Madras HC held that a show cause notice demanding reversal of Modvat credit taken during 1994-95 was unsustainable because the credit had been availed under protest and the Department had raised no contemporaneous objection. Section 5-B of the Central Excise Act was only an enabling provision for notification, so the absence of a notification could not be used against the assessee. Rule 57-I was treated as a recovery mechanism for wrongly availed credit, but a 2010 demand for 1994-95 credit was beyond time and arbitrary on the facts. The writ petition was maintainable despite alternate remedy, and the notice was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369672