https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271778 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely for non-filing of the declaration and intimation required under Rule 57T, because the filing requirement was treated as procedural and not a substantive bar. The disallowance also failed where the show cause notice did not specify the particular capital goods involved, leaving the allegation vague and unsupported by particulars. In these circumstances, the absence of the declaration alone was insufficient to sustain denial of credit, and the proposed disallowance was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271778 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely for non-filing of the declaration and intimation required under Rule 57T, because the filing requirement was treated as procedural and not a substantive bar. The disallowance also failed where the show cause notice did not specify the particular capital goods involved, leaving the allegation vague and unsupported by particulars. In these circumstances, the absence of the declaration alone was insufficient to sustain denial of credit, and the proposed disallowance was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271778