Modvat credit cannot be denied for invoice-description mismatch where receipt and use of goods are established.

Under the Modvat rules, credit on inputs and capital goods could not be denied merely because the invoice description did not exactly match the declaration, where the goods were actually received in the factory and used for the intended purpose. A later detailed declaration identifying the items specifically also supported the entitlement. The mismatch in nomenclature alone was insufficient to defeat a substantive credit claim, and the Modvat credit was allowable to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods could be denied merely because the description of goods in the invoices did not exactly tally with the description in the declaration filed under the Modvat rules.

Analysis: The dispute was limited to a difference in nomenclature between the invoices and the declaration, while the goods had in fact been received in the factory and used as inputs or capital goods. A subsequent detailed declaration was also filed naming the items specifically. A substantial benefit like Modvat credit cannot be denied solely on the basis of inaccuracy in description where the underlying entitlement is otherwise established.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit on the ground of mismatch in description was not justified and the credit was allowable to the assessee.

---