https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51210 Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q depended on the law in force on the date the goods were received, not on the later date of installation or use. Installation was treated only as a procedural step for availing credit and did not defer legal eligibility. A notification later restoring capital goods to the rule's scope was not treated as clarificatory or retrospective, because no express intent for retrospective operation was shown. Accordingly, goods received during the exclusion period remained outside eligibility, and the later amendment did not revive credit for that period. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:06:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51210 Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q depended on the law in force on the date the goods were received, not on the later date of installation or use. Installation was treated only as a procedural step for availing credit and did not defer legal eligibility. A notification later restoring capital goods to the rule's scope was not treated as clarificatory or retrospective, because no express intent for retrospective operation was shown. Accordingly, goods received during the exclusion period remained outside eligibility, and the later amendment did not revive credit for that period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51210