Modvat credit after factory relocation cannot be denied on a procedural lapse where reversal, intimation, and verification were established.

Modvat credit remained available after factory relocation where the credit was reversed at the old premises on excise officers' directions, intimation was given to the department, and the credit records and quantification were verified. With the jurisdictional range and divisional offices unchanged, and no dispute raised about the admissibility or accuracy of the credit, the procedural objection under Rule 57F(ii) did not justify denial. The transferred factory was therefore entitled to take the credit in its records.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be transferred and taken in the records of the new factory premises after relocation, and whether denial of credit was justified for non-compliance with Rule 57F(ii).

Analysis: The credit had been reversed at the old premises under the directions of the jurisdictional excise officers, due intimation had been given to the departmental authorities, and the records and quantification of credit were verified. The jurisdictional range and divisional offices remained unchanged. The lower authorities did not identify any missing critical particulars or dispute the admissibility or accuracy of the credit. In such circumstances, the procedural requirement relied upon by the department did not justify denial of the credit.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to take the credit at the transferred factory.

---