https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108843 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration lacked detailed particulars of parts and assemblies where the inputs were otherwise identified and later amplified with specific descriptions. The defect was confined to the manner of furnishing particulars, not to the assessee's underlying entitlement to credit. Relying on the Tribunal's earlier view and the Board circular issued after insertion of sub-rule (11) in Rule 57G, pending cases involving discrepancies in declarations were to be decided by granting the substantive benefit. The credit denial on the ground of insufficient detail was therefore not justified. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:00:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108843 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration lacked detailed particulars of parts and assemblies where the inputs were otherwise identified and later amplified with specific descriptions. The defect was confined to the manner of furnishing particulars, not to the assessee's underlying entitlement to credit. Relying on the Tribunal's earlier view and the Board circular issued after insertion of sub-rule (11) in Rule 57G, pending cases involving discrepancies in declarations were to be decided by granting the substantive benefit. The credit denial on the ground of insufficient detail was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108843