https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115910 Modvat credit under the excise rules was treated as substantive where duty-paid inputs were accounted for and used in manufacture. The declaration requirement under Rule 57G(1) was regarded as procedural, so minor defects or delay in filing the declaration did not, by themselves, justify denial of credit. The reasoning also recognised that delay could fall within the condonable framework under Rule 57T(13)(ii). The operative effect was that credit remained admissible despite procedural lapse in the declaration, provided the substantive conditions for credit were satisfied. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:14:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115910 Modvat credit under the excise rules was treated as substantive where duty-paid inputs were accounted for and used in manufacture. The declaration requirement under Rule 57G(1) was regarded as procedural, so minor defects or delay in filing the declaration did not, by themselves, justify denial of credit. The reasoning also recognised that delay could fall within the condonable framework under Rule 57T(13)(ii). The operative effect was that credit remained admissible despite procedural lapse in the declaration, provided the substantive conditions for credit were satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115910