https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113242 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57T(1) lacked fuller particulars, where the brand name, specification and classification were stated and supported by the purchase invoice; the goods were therefore sufficiently identifiable. Modvat credit on inputs also could not be refused because computer-generated invoices were issued without intimation of software details under Rule 57GG(8)(iii), as that defect was treated as technical and curable, with no dispute that the inputs were duty paid or used in manufacturing. The ratio is that technical or procedural defects do not defeat substantive credit where eligibility conditions are otherwise satisfied. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 15:06:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113242 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57T(1) lacked fuller particulars, where the brand name, specification and classification were stated and supported by the purchase invoice; the goods were therefore sufficiently identifiable. Modvat credit on inputs also could not be refused because computer-generated invoices were issued without intimation of software details under Rule 57GG(8)(iii), as that defect was treated as technical and curable, with no dispute that the inputs were duty paid or used in manufacturing. The ratio is that technical or procedural defects do not defeat substantive credit where eligibility conditions are otherwise satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113242