Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor description errors where inputs remain identifiable and substantive entitlement is established.

Modvat credit should not be denied where the declaration under Rule 57G substantially identifies the inputs and only minor descriptive discrepancies exist. A variation in barrel size or lubrizol grade did not change the essential identity of the inputs or show any substantive disqualification from credit. The principle reflected in the Board's circular and Tribunal decisions is that technical or procedural lapses, by themselves, do not justify rejection of otherwise valid credit entitlement. On that basis, the credit claim was treated as admissible despite the minor differences in description.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for minor discrepancies in the declaration of inputs under Rule 57G when the inputs were otherwise declared and identifiable.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee covered the relevant inputs. The variation in the size description of the barrel and the difference in the grade description of lubrizol did not alter the essential identity of the inputs or establish any disqualification from credit. The Board's circular on minor procedural lapses supports the principle that credit should not be denied on technical irregularities, and Tribunal decisions were relied on to the same effect.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on the ground of minor variation in description was not justified, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied solely for minor procedural or descriptive discrepancies in the declaration where the inputs are otherwise identifiable and the substantive entitlement is established.

---