Input credit allowed despite declaration under the wrong rule where substantive eligibility and acknowledgment were satisfied.

Input credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed under Rule 57Q instead of Rule 57A, where the goods were declared, acknowledged by the department, and used in manufacture. Applying the principle noted from Modi Rubber, the tribunal treated the substantive requirements as decisive and held that a declaration under one related credit provision could support entitlement under the other when the conditions for credit were otherwise satisfied. Credit under Rule 57A was therefore admissible from the date of the filed declaration and dated acknowledgment, and the denial of credit was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be allowed when the declaration had been filed under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The appellant had declared the goods and the department had obtained the relevant acknowledgment. The goods were used in the manufacture of the finished products, and the larger Bench decision in Modi Rubber was treated as authority for the proposition that a declaration made for one input-credit provision could support credit under the other where the substantive requirements were satisfied.

Conclusion: Credit under Rule 57A was held admissible from the date of filing of the declaration under Rule 57Q and obtaining the dated acknowledgment.

Final Conclusion: The denial of credit was set aside and the appellant's entitlement to credit was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for input credit are met, a declaration filed and acknowledged under one related credit provision may support entitlement under the other, and credit cannot be denied merely because it was not initially claimed under the correct rule.

---