https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118766 Modvat credit was treated as unavailable only for substantive defects, not for a merely procedural lapse in the supporting documents. The absence of the required endorsement or declaration under Rule 57G was regarded as technical, particularly where the bills of entry related to the initial period after Modvat was introduced and there was no allegation of misuse of credit. On that basis, the procedural omission did not defeat the underlying entitlement to credit, and the allowance of Modvat credit was upheld. en-us Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118766 Modvat credit was treated as unavailable only for substantive defects, not for a merely procedural lapse in the supporting documents. The absence of the required endorsement or declaration under Rule 57G was regarded as technical, particularly where the bills of entry related to the initial period after Modvat was introduced and there was no allegation of misuse of credit. On that basis, the procedural omission did not defeat the underlying entitlement to credit, and the allowance of Modvat credit was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118766