Modvat credit cannot be denied for using the earlier declaration form when the substantive credit claim was already disclosed.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because goods later came within the definition of capital goods after a notification, and the assessee had not filed a fresh declaration under Rule 57T. The prior declaration filed under Rule 57G had already informed the Revenue of the credit claim, so the purpose of the declaration requirement was substantially met. The later requirement was treated as procedural, and the defect did not affect substantive entitlement to credit. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because, after the relevant notification, the goods became capital goods and the assessee had filed declaration under Rule 57G instead of filing a fresh declaration under Rule 57T.

Analysis: The declaration had already been filed for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A before the notification changed the treatment of the goods. After Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), the items came within the definition of capital goods, but the requirement of filing a fresh declaration under Rule 57T was held to be only procedural. The purpose of the declaration was to inform the Revenue of the assessee's claim to credit, and that purpose was satisfied by the earlier declaration. The defect did not defeat the substantive entitlement to credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on this procedural ground, and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the denial of Modvat credit was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory declaration has substantially served its purpose, a mere change in the form of declaration following a notification does not justify denial of Modvat credit on a procedural lapse.

---