Modvat credit not denied for wrong sub-heading where goods description and tariff entry were otherwise correct.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the input declaration mentioned an incorrect sub-heading when the description of the goods and the relevant tariff entry were otherwise consistent. The declared inputs and the duty-paid goods fell within tariff headings covering pigments, and differing classifications by manufacturers could not be ruled out. Since the discrepancy was confined to the sub-heading and the assessee had no control over the supplier's classification, the substance of the declaration was treated as satisfied. The wrong sub-heading was therefore held immaterial, and Modvat credit remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the input declaration mentioned an incorrect sub-heading, when the description of the goods and the relevant tariff entry were otherwise consistent.

Analysis: The declared inputs and the goods on which duty was paid fell within tariff headings covering pigments, and the possibility of different manufacturers adopting different classifications could not be ruled out. The discrepancy was only in the sub-heading, while the nature and description of the goods remained correct. The established line of decisions treated such a mismatch as not material where the assessee had no control over the supplier's classification and the substance of the declaration was otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: The wrong mention of sub-heading did not justify denial of Modvat credit. The assessee's claim was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---