Modvat credit on inputs for by-product purification cannot be denied where the final product nexus and transitional claim are established.

Modvat credit was treated as admissible on hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid used to purify glycerine where the purified glycerine had a direct nexus with manufacture of soap, and credit could not be denied merely because the inputs related to a by-product. The text also states that inputs received before filing of the declaration could not be rejected solely on that procedural ground, because the claim required examination under the transitional provision and substantive credit should not fail for a procedural lapse when the goods were available for verification. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered under the transitional scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit was admissible on hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid used for purification of glycerine, when glycerine was a by-product used in the manufacture of the final product; and (ii) whether credit on inputs received before filing of declaration could be denied without examining the claim under the transitional provisions.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit was admissible on hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid used for purification of glycerine, when glycerine was a by-product used in the manufacture of the final product.

Analysis: The inputs were used for purification of glycerine, and the purified glycerine was used in the manufacture of soap. Once the by-product so treated had a direct nexus with the manufacture of the final product, the credit could not be denied merely because the immediate use was in relation to the by-product.

Conclusion: Modvat credit on hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid was admissible to the extent the purified glycerine was used in the manufacture of soap.

Issue (ii): Whether credit on inputs received before filing of declaration could be denied without examining the claim under the transitional provisions.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57G was filed after receipt of the inputs, and the claim required consideration under Rule 57H. Substantive benefit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse when the inputs were available for verification and the transitional provision was not examined.

Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration under the transitional provision and could not be finally rejected on the procedural objection.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication, while recognising the assessee's entitlement in principle to Modvat credit on the disputed inputs.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit cannot be denied where inputs used in relation to a by-product have an established nexus with the manufacture of the final product, and procedural defects in declaration cannot defeat a substantive credit claim under the transitional scheme.

---