https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122109 Modvat credit was stated to remain available where the input was actually used in manufacturing the final product, even if the declaration did not fully describe the input or omitted a detail required under Rule 57G. The text also states that a wrong or missing sub-heading in the declaration, when only technical and later clarified, was not a valid ground to refuse credit. Substantive entitlement prevailed over procedural defects, so credit was not to be denied for incomplete descriptions or technical tariff classification errors where the underlying use of the inputs was established. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:24:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122109 Modvat credit was stated to remain available where the input was actually used in manufacturing the final product, even if the declaration did not fully describe the input or omitted a detail required under Rule 57G. The text also states that a wrong or missing sub-heading in the declaration, when only technical and later clarified, was not a valid ground to refuse credit. Substantive entitlement prevailed over procedural defects, so credit was not to be denied for incomplete descriptions or technical tariff classification errors where the underlying use of the inputs was established. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122109