https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116149 Cenvat credit on imported capital goods diverted to the appellant's unit was considered admissible where the reverse of the Bill of Entry contained a declaration showing the clear purpose of diversion, even though the form of the declaration was questioned for non-compliance with the Board's circular. The substance of the declaration was treated as more important than its form, provided it satisfied Circular No. 179/13/1996-C.X. dated 29-2-1996. Because a customs officer's signature also appeared below the declaration, the authorities were required to examine properly whether the customs endorsement requirement had been fulfilled. The denial of credit was therefore not sustained at that stage, and reconsideration on endorsement was warranted. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:37:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116149 Cenvat credit on imported capital goods diverted to the appellant's unit was considered admissible where the reverse of the Bill of Entry contained a declaration showing the clear purpose of diversion, even though the form of the declaration was questioned for non-compliance with the Board's circular. The substance of the declaration was treated as more important than its form, provided it satisfied Circular No. 179/13/1996-C.X. dated 29-2-1996. Because a customs officer's signature also appeared below the declaration, the authorities were required to examine properly whether the customs endorsement requirement had been fulfilled. The denial of credit was therefore not sustained at that stage, and reconsideration on endorsement was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116149