https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98436 Modvat credit could not be refused solely because the declaration was first filed under Rule 57Q instead of Rule 57A, as the form of declaration was not determinative by itself. Applying the Larger Bench ruling in Modi Rubber, the tribunal held that substantive entitlement had to be examined on the merits, and the initial invocation of the capital goods provision did not by itself defeat credit. The adjudicating authority was required to consider the claim substantively rather than reject it on the basis of the incorrect rule cited in the declaration. en-us Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98436 Modvat credit could not be refused solely because the declaration was first filed under Rule 57Q instead of Rule 57A, as the form of declaration was not determinative by itself. Applying the Larger Bench ruling in Modi Rubber, the tribunal held that substantive entitlement had to be examined on the merits, and the initial invocation of the capital goods provision did not by itself defeat credit. The adjudicating authority was required to consider the claim substantively rather than reject it on the basis of the incorrect rule cited in the declaration. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98436