Modvat credit on rubber processing chemicals cannot be denied for omission of a specific item name in the declaration.

Modvat credit could not be denied for retarder used in rubber processing merely because it was not separately named in the Rule 57G declaration, where it was admittedly covered by the broader description of rubber processing chemicals. The omission of a specific item name was treated as a procedural defect, particularly since the credit was taken in the early phase of the Modvat scheme when procedural requirements had not fully crystallised. Credit was therefore allowed because the declaration sufficiently identified the goods by general description, and denial on a narrow technical ground was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on retarder used in rubber processing merely because the item was not specifically named in the declaration filed under Rule 57G, although it fell within the general description of rubber processing chemicals.

Analysis: The item was not disputed to be a rubber processing chemical and therefore fell within the general description shown in the declaration. Credit had been taken in the early period of Modvat when procedural requirements had not yet fully crystallised. In similar circumstances, credit had been allowed where the goods were covered by a broader description even though not separately named.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was not justified and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A Modvat declaration may be sufficient where the goods are covered by a clear general description and the omission of a specific name is only a procedural defect, especially in the early phase of the scheme.

---