https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48376 The High Court ruled in favor of the dealer, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 57G was incorrect. The dealer was allowed to claim credit for the entire amount paid as additional duty of customs, rejecting the disallowance of Modvat credit for delayed availing. The Court emphasized that a limitation period of six months for availing Modvat credit could not be introduced without a specific provision, and the amendment to Rule 57G with such a limit was prospective, not applicable to past transactions. The outcome favored the dealer over the revenue, answering the reference in favor of the dealer. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48376 The High Court ruled in favor of the dealer, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 57G was incorrect. The dealer was allowed to claim credit for the entire amount paid as additional duty of customs, rejecting the disallowance of Modvat credit for delayed availing. The Court emphasized that a limitation period of six months for availing Modvat credit could not be introduced without a specific provision, and the amendment to Rule 57G with such a limit was prospective, not applicable to past transactions. The outcome favored the dealer over the revenue, answering the reference in favor of the dealer. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48376