https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165214 Earlier Division Bench decisions had already rejected the Revenue's view that filing a declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was a mandatory substantive condition for availing credit under Rule 57Q. On that basis, non-compliance with the declaration requirement was not accepted as a ground to deny credit, and the Department's request for reference of the questions of law did not survive for consideration. en-us Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165214 Earlier Division Bench decisions had already rejected the Revenue's view that filing a declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was a mandatory substantive condition for availing credit under Rule 57Q. On that basis, non-compliance with the declaration requirement was not accepted as a ground to deny credit, and the Department's request for reference of the questions of law did not survive for consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165214