Substantial compliance for Modvat declarations prevents denial of credit when filing was made in the Range Office.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G(1) was filed and received in the Range Office rather than the Divisional Office. The filing requirement was mandatory, but receipt by the Range Office, which formed part of the Assistant Collector's establishment, amounted to substantial compliance. The dispute did not concern the eligibility of the inputs or the availability of Modvat benefit on merits; the defect was only technical. Where the department had been informed and could verify the claim, denial of credit on that ground was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied solely because the declaration was filed in the Range Office instead of the Divisional Office, and whether such filing constituted compliance with Rule 57G(1).

Analysis: The declaration was in fact filed and received in the Range Office, which formed part of the Assistant Collector's establishment. The dispute did not concern the eligibility of the inputs or the availability of Modvat benefit on merits. Filing of the declaration was a mandatory requirement, but the receipt of the declaration by the Range Office amounted to substantial compliance with the rule. The distinction between a procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition was applied, and the benefit could not be denied merely for a technical lapse when the department had been informed and could verify the claim.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground that the declaration was filed in the Range Office, and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

---