Substantial compliance protects Modvat credit where a Rule 57G declaration contains only a clerical misdescription of the final product.

A mistaken description of an input against the wrong final product in a Rule 57G declaration does not, by itself, defeat Modvat credit where the input was otherwise disclosed and substantive eligibility was not in dispute. Phosphoric acid had been declared as an input, and it was found to be used in the manufacture of nylon filament yarn; the wrong placement against polyester filament yarn was treated as a clerical error and procedural lapse. Applying the principle of substantial compliance, the procedural defect was held not to affect entitlement to credit otherwise available.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied because phosphoric acid was shown in the declaration under Rule 57G as an input for polyester filament yarn instead of nylon filament yarn.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57G had been filed and phosphoric acid was disclosed as an input. The dispute turned on the incorrect placement of the input against the wrong final product in the declaration. The relevant authority had already found that phosphoric acid was used in the manufacture of nylon filament yarn. In these circumstances, the incorrect mention was treated as a clerical mistake and a mere procedural lapse. The defect did not go to the substance of entitlement, and denial of Modvat credit on that technical ground was not justified. The principle of substantial compliance was applied, and the procedural omission was held not to defeat the credit otherwise available.

Conclusion: The declaration defect was only a clerical and procedural irregularity, and Modvat credit could not be denied on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive eligibility for Modvat credit is not in dispute, a mistaken description of the input against the wrong final product in the declaration does not defeat the claim if the declaration otherwise discloses the input and the error is merely clerical.

---