https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106265 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because goods later came within the definition of capital goods after a notification, and the assessee had not filed a fresh declaration under Rule 57T. The prior declaration filed under Rule 57G had already informed the Revenue of the credit claim, so the purpose of the declaration requirement was substantially met. The later requirement was treated as procedural, and the defect did not affect substantive entitlement to credit. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106265 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because goods later came within the definition of capital goods after a notification, and the assessee had not filed a fresh declaration under Rule 57T. The prior declaration filed under Rule 57G had already informed the Revenue of the credit claim, so the purpose of the declaration requirement was substantially met. The later requirement was treated as procedural, and the defect did not affect substantive entitlement to credit. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106265