https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97694 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because intimation of receipt was delayed, where that delay had been condoned under the Central Excise Rules and the declarations were duly filed with acknowledgements. A later formal acknowledgement was treated as relating back to the filing date, and the department itself recorded that credit was not to be refused on that ground. Maintaining a separate RG-23C account during pending appeals, with notice to the range officer, was only a protective step to preserve the credit position and did not show mala fides or justify denial of credit. The credit claim was therefore sustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:59:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97694 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because intimation of receipt was delayed, where that delay had been condoned under the Central Excise Rules and the declarations were duly filed with acknowledgements. A later formal acknowledgement was treated as relating back to the filing date, and the department itself recorded that credit was not to be refused on that ground. Maintaining a separate RG-23C account during pending appeals, with notice to the range officer, was only a protective step to preserve the credit position and did not show mala fides or justify denial of credit. The credit claim was therefore sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97694