https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86460 Modvat credit on copper wire under Sub-heading 7408.19 could not be denied merely because the input description was later deleted from the Rule 57G declaration. The deletion was treated as inadvertent and unintentional, since it was made by a representative during a visit to the Central Excise office and not by the signatory, and the Department showed no deliberate request by the assessee to withdraw the input. The earlier permission to send Modvat inputs for job work and the technical nature of the lapse supported the view that credit remained admissible. en-us Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:51:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86460 Modvat credit on copper wire under Sub-heading 7408.19 could not be denied merely because the input description was later deleted from the Rule 57G declaration. The deletion was treated as inadvertent and unintentional, since it was made by a representative during a visit to the Central Excise office and not by the signatory, and the Department showed no deliberate request by the assessee to withdraw the input. The earlier permission to send Modvat inputs for job work and the technical nature of the lapse supported the view that credit remained admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86460