Modvat credit on capital goods cannot be denied merely for delayed or missing declaration where substantive entitlement exists.

Amended Rule 57T(13) was interpreted to relax denial of Modvat credit for defective or missing declarations relating to capital goods. The requirement under Rule 57T was treated as satisfied by filing the declaration and obtaining acknowledgment, and the amendment was held to cover cases where no declaration had been filed as well as incomplete declarations. Credit could not be refused solely because the declaration was filed late or not in the earlier prescribed manner, where substantive entitlement was otherwise established.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on capital goods could be denied for non-compliance with the declaration requirement under Rule 57T when the amended Rule 57T(13) had come into force.

Analysis: Rule 57T(1) required a declaration before receipt of capital goods, while Rule 57T(3) regulated the time for filing and condonation of delay. The amended Rule 57T(13), inserted from 9-2-1999, was held to cover not only cases where a declaration was incomplete, but also cases where no declaration had been filed at all, because the only real requirement on the manufacturer was to file the declaration and secure acknowledgment. The reasoning was supported by the Larger Bench view that the corresponding amendment in Rule 57G removed denial of credit merely for absence of declaration.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied solely on the ground that the declarations were not filed within the prescribed time, and the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the amended Modvat provision expressly relaxes denial of credit for non-compliance with declaration requirements, credit cannot be refused merely because the declaration was delayed or not filed in the earlier prescribed manner, if the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

---