https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48376 Rule 57G could not be read as imposing a six-month limit for availing Modvat credit for the relevant period because that limitation was inserted only prospectively on 29-6-1995. In the absence of any statutory time bar during the disputed period, the Tribunal could not import a limitation by interpretation, and the later amendment did not govern earlier transactions. The dealer was therefore entitled to claim the differential Modvat credit later when the shortfall was discovered, and the claim could not be rejected merely because it was made after the original credit entry. 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 Rule 57G could not be read as imposing a six-month limit for availing Modvat credit for the relevant period because that limitation was inserted only prospectively on 29-6-1995. In the absence of any statutory time bar during the disputed period, the Tribunal could not import a limitation by interpretation, and the later amendment did not govern earlier transactions. The dealer was therefore entitled to claim the differential Modvat credit later when the shortfall was discovered, and the claim could not be rejected merely because it was made after the original credit entry. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48376