https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48747 For unamended Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a reasonable period of limitation had to be implied for recovery of wrongfully availed or utilised Modvat credit despite the absence of an express time limit; the ordinary period was six months, extendable to five years where suppression, wilful misstatement, or collusion was involved, and the period ran from departmental knowledge of the irregular availment. The same principle was applied to Rule 57E, so an unstated limitation could not support an unlimited claim for Modvat credit. In ordinary cases, six months was treated as the reasonable period, reckoned from receipt of the goods in the factory for taking credit. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:00:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48747 For unamended Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a reasonable period of limitation had to be implied for recovery of wrongfully availed or utilised Modvat credit despite the absence of an express time limit; the ordinary period was six months, extendable to five years where suppression, wilful misstatement, or collusion was involved, and the period ran from departmental knowledge of the irregular availment. The same principle was applied to Rule 57E, so an unstated limitation could not support an unlimited claim for Modvat credit. In ordinary cases, six months was treated as the reasonable period, reckoned from receipt of the goods in the factory for taking credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48747