https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84074 A Modvat declaration under Rule 57G must give a specific and sufficient description of the inputs; broad chapter headings alone are inadequate because they do not identify the goods with precision. On that basis, Modvat credit was denied and the demand sustained under Rule 57-I within the normal six-month period, as limitation did not bar recovery. An irregular corrigendum issued after personal hearing, which added a reference to Section 11A, did not by itself invalidate the adjudication because the demand was independently supportable under Rule 57-I. The lower appellate order was set aside and the adjudication restoring the demand was maintained. en-us Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:22:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84074 A Modvat declaration under Rule 57G must give a specific and sufficient description of the inputs; broad chapter headings alone are inadequate because they do not identify the goods with precision. On that basis, Modvat credit was denied and the demand sustained under Rule 57-I within the normal six-month period, as limitation did not bar recovery. An irregular corrigendum issued after personal hearing, which added a reference to Section 11A, did not by itself invalidate the adjudication because the demand was independently supportable under Rule 57-I. The lower appellate order was set aside and the adjudication restoring the demand was maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84074