https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100212 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because the Rule 57T declaration lacked a detailed description or brand name in some entries. The goods were otherwise identifiable through correct sub-headings and as parts and accessories of specified machines, and there was no dispute about their duty-paid character or their use in the factory. In light of the amendment in Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) and Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, minor procedural defects in the declaration were held insufficient to defeat credit entitlement. The assessee was therefore entitled to Modvat credit. en-us Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:59:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100212 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because the Rule 57T declaration lacked a detailed description or brand name in some entries. The goods were otherwise identifiable through correct sub-headings and as parts and accessories of specified machines, and there was no dispute about their duty-paid character or their use in the factory. In light of the amendment in Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) and Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, minor procedural defects in the declaration were held insufficient to defeat credit entitlement. The assessee was therefore entitled to Modvat credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100212