https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84254 Modvat credit could not be denied for retarder used in rubber processing merely because it was not separately named in the Rule 57G declaration, where it was admittedly covered by the broader description of rubber processing chemicals. The omission of a specific item name was treated as a procedural defect, particularly since the credit was taken in the early phase of the Modvat scheme when procedural requirements had not fully crystallised. Credit was therefore allowed because the declaration sufficiently identified the goods by general description, and denial on a narrow technical ground was unjustified. en-us Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:56:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84254 Modvat credit could not be denied for retarder used in rubber processing merely because it was not separately named in the Rule 57G declaration, where it was admittedly covered by the broader description of rubber processing chemicals. The omission of a specific item name was treated as a procedural defect, particularly since the credit was taken in the early phase of the Modvat scheme when procedural requirements had not fully crystallised. Credit was therefore allowed because the declaration sufficiently identified the goods by general description, and denial on a narrow technical ground was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84254