Input credit cannot be denied for invoice description differences where goods are functionally identical and classifiable under the same tariff heading.

Input credit cannot be denied merely because the invoice description differs from the description used by the assessee where the supplier confirms that the goods are functionally identical. The supplier's letter showed that both products performed the same stabilising function, had a similar reaction mechanism, were used in the same applications, and were classifiable under the same tariff heading, Chapter 3812.00. On that basis, the nomenclature difference on the invoice was not sufficient to defeat credit, and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit could be denied merely because the invoice description differed from the description adopted by the assessee, when the supplier's letter showed that the goods were functionally identical and fell under the same tariff heading.

Analysis: The supplier's confirmation established that the two products had the same stabilising function, similar reaction mechanism, were used in the same applications, and both fell under Chapter 3812.00. On that basis, the difference in nomenclature on the invoice did not justify denial of credit when the goods were shown to be identical in function and character.

Conclusion: Credit could not be denied on the sole ground of difference in description, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---