Modvat credit cannot be denied for a technical omission where the declaration broadly covers the relevant components.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because CPU cards were not separately named in the declaration where the declaration already covered the final product and its components and raw materials. The omission to list the cards specifically was treated as a technical defect, not a substantive failure of declaration. On that basis, the CPU cards were regarded as falling within the scope of the declared items, and the denial of Modvat benefit was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on CPU cards could be denied on the ground that CPU cards were not specifically named in the Modvat declaration.

Analysis: The declaration covered the final product and the components and raw materials listed with it. CPU cards, though not separately described, were treated as components of the CPU and as falling within the scope of the declared items. The omission to name them specifically was treated as a technical defect rather than a substantive failure of declaration.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat benefit was not justified; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific item may be treated as duly declared for Modvat purposes where the declaration broadly covers the relevant components and the omission to name the item separately is only technical.

---