https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47796 Delayed filing of a declaration under Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not defeat MODVAT credit on capital goods where duty payment and use in manufacture were otherwise established. Rule 57-Q conferred the substantive credit entitlement, while Rule 57-T governed procedure; the insertion of Rule 57-T(13) confirmed that minor documentary or declaratory defects could not override that entitlement if the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied on duty payment and intended or actual use in manufacture. Procedural time limits could not prevail over substantive compliance, and the assessee remained entitled to credit. en-us Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2024 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47796 Delayed filing of a declaration under Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not defeat MODVAT credit on capital goods where duty payment and use in manufacture were otherwise established. Rule 57-Q conferred the substantive credit entitlement, while Rule 57-T governed procedure; the insertion of Rule 57-T(13) confirmed that minor documentary or declaratory defects could not override that entitlement if the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied on duty payment and intended or actual use in manufacture. Procedural time limits could not prevail over substantive compliance, and the assessee remained entitled to credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47796