Modvat credit cannot be denied for incomplete input descriptions when the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration lacked detailed particulars of parts and assemblies where the inputs were otherwise identified and later amplified with specific descriptions. The defect was confined to the manner of furnishing particulars, not to the assessee's underlying entitlement to credit. Relying on the Tribunal's earlier view and the Board circular issued after insertion of sub-rule (11) in Rule 57G, pending cases involving discrepancies in declarations were to be decided by granting the substantive benefit. The credit denial on the ground of insufficient detail was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration of inputs under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not contain detailed particulars of the parts and assemblies.

Analysis: The declaration initially described the inputs as computer parts and was later amplified with specific details. The earlier Tribunal decision and the Board circular issued after insertion of sub-rule (11) in Rule 57G were relied upon to indicate that pending cases involving discrepancies in declarations were to be decided by granting the substantive benefit. The defect complained of was only in the particulars furnished, not in the entitlement to credit itself.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on the ground of insufficiently detailed declaration was not justified, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---