https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103893 Modvat credit on capital goods was not to be denied merely because the declaration for spare parts did not list each individual item by name. The disclosure identified the goods as spare parts and specified the relevant tariff heading, which was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 57T(1). Item-wise description of every spare part was held unnecessary where the tariff classification and nature of the goods were stated. On that basis, denial of credit was unjustified and the credit was admissible. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:33:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103893 Modvat credit on capital goods was not to be denied merely because the declaration for spare parts did not list each individual item by name. The disclosure identified the goods as spare parts and specified the relevant tariff heading, which was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 57T(1). Item-wise description of every spare part was held unnecessary where the tariff classification and nature of the goods were stated. On that basis, denial of credit was unjustified and the credit was admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103893