https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50822 Under the compounded levy scheme for embroidery, the special procedure was treated as replacing the general Modvat framework, so a manufacturer opting into that scheme could not use Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q for the period before 02.06.1998. For demands under Rule 96ZL, the absence of an express limitation period did not permit indefinite action; a demand issued after more than 15 months was held to be raised beyond a reasonable time. The repeal argument failed because the proceedings were saved, but the penalty could not survive once the demand itself was time-barred. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:30:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50822 Under the compounded levy scheme for embroidery, the special procedure was treated as replacing the general Modvat framework, so a manufacturer opting into that scheme could not use Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q for the period before 02.06.1998. For demands under Rule 96ZL, the absence of an express limitation period did not permit indefinite action; a demand issued after more than 15 months was held to be raised beyond a reasonable time. The repeal argument failed because the proceedings were saved, but the penalty could not survive once the demand itself was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50822