Modvat credit for minor declaration defects upheld where duty-paid inputs were received and substantive eligibility was satisfied.

Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration described the inputs differently, where the duty-paid inputs were admittedly received and substantive eligibility was otherwise satisfied. The applicable amendment to Rule 57G and the Board circular on minor procedural lapses were treated as applicable at the appeal stage, and the mismatch was regarded as a procedural defect only. On that basis, denial of credit was unjustified, and the assessee's claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for a mismatch in the description of inputs in the Rule 57G declaration when the inputs were admittedly received and duty-paid, and the defect was only procedural.

Analysis: Rule 57G, as amended, and the Board Circular on minor procedural lapses were applied to pending cases at the appeal stage. The controlling principle was that credit should not be disallowed merely because the declaration did not carry the exact description of the input, if the authority is otherwise satisfied that the duty-paid inputs were received. Since there was no dispute about receipt of the inputs or their duty-paid nature, the discrepancy in description was treated as a minor procedural defect.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit was unjustified; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied for a minor procedural lapse in the declaration when receipt of duty-paid inputs is not in dispute and the statutory authority is otherwise satisfied on the substantive eligibility conditions.

---