Procedural delay in filing capital goods declaration did not bar Cenvat credit or refund of reversed credit.

Belated filing of the Rule 57T(1) declaration did not justify denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods where the lapse was only procedural and the Board's circulars indicated that credit should not be refused on that basis. The absence of a separate application for condonation of delay did not extinguish the substantive entitlement to credit. Since reversal of the credit was therefore unnecessary, the assessee was also entitled to refund of the amount reversed. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on capital goods could be denied, and refund of reversed credit refused, merely because the declaration under Rule 57T(1) was filed belatedly without a separate application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The declaration had been filed, though late, and the dispute concerned only the absence of a condonation request for the delay. The Board's circulars clarified that credit should not be denied for a mere procedural lapse. On that basis, the delay in filing the declaration did not extinguish the entitlement to credit, and the earlier reversal of credit was not justified.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to take Cenvat credit on the capital goods and, since reversal was not required, to refund of the amount reversed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---