Modvat credit denied for product description mismatch was held unjustified where the declaration sufficiently covered the goods.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the final product was described in the Rule 57G declaration under one product name while the Revenue treated the goods as differently classified. The Tribunal treated the expressions used in the documents as synonymous, relied on earlier decisions that minor discrepancies in description or classification should not defeat credit, and noted that no earlier objection had been raised by the Revenue. On that basis, the declaration was considered sufficient to cover the product in question and the disallowance of Modvat credit was found unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the final product was described in the declaration under Rule 57G as one product name, while the Revenue treated the same goods as differently classified.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that there were earlier decisions holding that minor discrepancies between the classification of the declared product and the received inputs should not result in denial of Modvat credit. The expressions used in the documents were treated as synonymous, and no objection had been raised by the Revenue earlier. On that basis, the declaration was held sufficient to cover the product in question and the denial of credit was found unjustified.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Modvat credit was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---