Procedural defect in Rule 57G declaration did not justify denial of Modvat credit where the declaration was accepted by the department.

A declaration under Rule 57G filed before the Superintendent, rather than the Assistant Collector, was treated as sufficient for Modvat credit where it was accepted and communicated within the departmental hierarchy. The defect was procedural only and did not mean that no declaration had been made. On those facts, the Department could not deny credit merely because the declaration was not initially filed before the Assistant Collector with acknowledgement, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 before the Superintendent, instead of the Assistant Collector, was sufficient to entitle the assessee to Modvat credit.

Analysis: The declaration was accepted by the Superintendent and was ultimately communicated within the departmental hierarchy. The defect was procedural in nature and did not show that no declaration had been made. On these facts, the Department could not deny credit merely because the declaration was not initially filed before the Assistant Collector with acknowledgement.

Conclusion: The procedural lapse did not justify denial of Modvat credit, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---