https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108378 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a Rule 57G declaration used a broad description of inputs and final products, where the goods were identifiable from the declared tariff headings and sub-headings; item-by-item detail was not required for credit eligibility. Limitation under Section 11A could not be extended in the absence of proved suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, especially where the department had no reliable proof of non-disclosure and the assessee had furnished particulars during the visit. On both issues, the assessee was granted relief and the demand was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:52:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108378 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a Rule 57G declaration used a broad description of inputs and final products, where the goods were identifiable from the declared tariff headings and sub-headings; item-by-item detail was not required for credit eligibility. Limitation under Section 11A could not be extended in the absence of proved suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, especially where the department had no reliable proof of non-disclosure and the assessee had furnished particulars during the visit. On both issues, the assessee was granted relief and the demand was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108378