https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104677 Input credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed under Rule 57Q instead of Rule 57A, where the goods were declared, acknowledged by the department, and used in manufacture. Applying the principle noted from Modi Rubber, the tribunal treated the substantive requirements as decisive and held that a declaration under one related credit provision could support entitlement under the other when the conditions for credit were otherwise satisfied. Credit under Rule 57A was therefore admissible from the date of the filed declaration and dated acknowledgment, and the denial of credit was set aside. en-us Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:46:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104677 Input credit could not be denied merely because the declaration was filed under Rule 57Q instead of Rule 57A, where the goods were declared, acknowledged by the department, and used in manufacture. Applying the principle noted from Modi Rubber, the tribunal treated the substantive requirements as decisive and held that a declaration under one related credit provision could support entitlement under the other when the conditions for credit were otherwise satisfied. Credit under Rule 57A was therefore admissible from the date of the filed declaration and dated acknowledgment, and the denial of credit was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104677