Modvat credit cannot be denied for missing RG 23A entries where valid declaration and eligible input use are shown.

Credit under Rule 57G could not be denied merely because the inputs were not entered in the RG 23A register. The declaration under Rule 57G had already been filed and remained valid, the inputs were received after that declaration, and they were used in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty. Rule 57H was held inapplicable because it concerned inputs received immediately before the dated acknowledgment. The absence of RG 23A entries was treated as a procedural lapse only, not a substantive defect defeating credit, and entitlement to credit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit on inputs could be denied merely because entries were not made in the RG 23A register, and whether Rule 57H applied to the facts so as to restrict the appellant's entitlement to credit.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57G had already been filed and remained valid. The inputs were received after the declaration and were used in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty. Rule 57H was held inapplicable on the facts because it concerned inputs received immediately prior to the dated acknowledgment. The only deficiency was the absence of RG 23A entries, which was treated as a procedural lapse and not as a substantive defect defeating credit.

Conclusion: Credit could not be denied on the ground of non-entry in RG 23A, and the appellant was entitled to take credit under Rule 57G.

---