Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor declaration defects when goods are duty-paid and duty rate is unaffected.

Modvat credit under Rule 57G was treated as admissible where the inputs were duty-paid and broadly described in the declaration, even though the exact width was not stated. The omission was regarded as a technical lapse because the stated and actual widths fell within the same chapter and did not affect the applicable duty rate. Relying on earlier decisions, the text states that procedural defects should not defeat substantive credit entitlement when the material particulars are otherwise sufficient. On that basis, denial of credit was not justified and the credit claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for want of precise width particulars in the declaration filed under Rule 57G when the inputs were broadly described, duty-paid, and the width variation did not affect the rate of duty.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57G was filed and the goods were described broadly, though the width mentioned did not match the actual width of the inputs used. The material aspect was that both widths fell within the same chapter and there was no difference in duty rate on the basis of width. In an earlier decision involving the same assessee and in another cited decision, it had been held that technical objections should not override the substantive entitlement to credit. On that reasoning, the omission to state the exact width was treated as a technical lapse and not a ground to deny credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was held admissible and the denial of credit was set aside.

---