Modvat credit cannot be denied for delayed declaration or unnotified Rule 57F(20) objections when otherwise admissible.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed late or because of alleged non-compliance with Rule 57F(20). The authority had power under Rule 57G(9) to condone delay, and the delayed declaration was rejected without valid reason. The denial on Rule 57F(20) grounds also failed because that allegation was not contained in the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority went beyond its scope. Procedural requirements were treated as technical rather than substantive, so credit remained admissible and the revenue's challenge did not raise any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for non-filing or delayed filing of declaration and for alleged non-compliance with Rule 57F(20), and whether the revenue's appeal raised any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57G was filed with delay, but the authority had power under Rule 57G(9) to condone the delay, and the delayed declaration was rejected without valid reason. The finding regarding Rule 57F(20) could not sustain the denial of credit because no such allegation was made in the show cause notice, and the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond its scope. The appellate authorities were right in holding that the procedural requirements were technical in nature and that credit could not be denied when otherwise admissible. The challenge accordingly did not disclose any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the stated grounds, and the revenue's appeal failed.

---