Minor tariff variation in input descriptions does not defeat credit where the goods are otherwise identifiable and substantially the same.

A minor variation between the description of inputs in a Rule 57G declaration and the invoices does not, by itself, defeat credit where the goods are otherwise identifiable and the discrepancy is only in nomenclature or tariff classification. The document states that the inputs shown in both records were substantially the same, and that classification difficulties for iron and steel castings during the relevant period made the variation immaterial. The stated principle is that interchangeable terms or slight tariff differences should not be used to deny a substantive statutory entitlement when the identity of the goods remains consistent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a minor variation between the description and tariff classification of inputs in the Rule 57G declaration and the invoices was sufficient to deny the benefit of credit.

Analysis: The inputs described in the declaration and those reflected in the invoices were substantially the same, though shown under different tariff descriptions. The variation was only one of classification and terminology. In view of the established difficulty in classifying iron and steel castings during the relevant period, and the principle that interchangeable terms or minor tariff variation should not defeat a substantive entitlement where the identity of the goods remains consistent, the discrepancy was not material.

Conclusion: The minor variation did not justify denial of the benefit, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods are otherwise identifiable and the discrepancy is only in description or tariff classification, a minor variation in nomenclature does not by itself disentitle the assessee from the statutory benefit.

---