https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115365 Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G described the input as "Bright Bars" instead of "Bright Flats", where the tariff entry was correctly stated and substantive entitlement was otherwise established. The amended Rule 57G, as applied to pending cases, did not authorise rejection of credit on a purely technical defect in wording. A Board circular and prior Tribunal authority supported this view. The effect is that clerical or descriptive errors in the declaration do not defeat credit when the underlying eligibility and classification are correct. en-us Mon, 09 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 May 2012 13:57:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115365 Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G described the input as "Bright Bars" instead of "Bright Flats", where the tariff entry was correctly stated and substantive entitlement was otherwise established. The amended Rule 57G, as applied to pending cases, did not authorise rejection of credit on a purely technical defect in wording. A Board circular and prior Tribunal authority supported this view. The effect is that clerical or descriptive errors in the declaration do not defeat credit when the underlying eligibility and classification are correct. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115365