Modvat credit cannot be denied for multiple declarations when stock and eligibility are otherwise established.

Modvat credit on inputs already lying in stock could not be denied merely because the assessee filed multiple declarations instead of one consolidated declaration. Since the eligibility of the inputs and the existence of stock were not in dispute, the procedural form of declaration filing did not defeat the substantive credit entitlement. In the absence of a statutory requirement insisting on a single declaration, the objection was treated as only a procedural lapse and was not a valid ground to refuse credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the assessee filed multiple declarations instead of one consolidated declaration for inputs lying in stock as on the relevant date.

Analysis: Credit on the inputs in stock was not in dispute. The denial rested only on the manner of filing declarations, namely that more than one declaration was filed instead of a single declaration. The governing rule did not require only one declaration, and the procedural lapse did not detract from the entitlement to credit where the stock and eligibility were otherwise established.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit on the ground of multiple declarations was unjustified and the credit was admissible.

Final Conclusion: The order denying credit was set aside and the assessee succeeded on the procedural objection raised against its declaration filings.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive credit entitlement cannot be denied solely for non-compliance with a procedural formality, absent a statutory requirement mandating one consolidated declaration.

---