Modvat credit cannot be denied for a clerical description error when substantive eligibility and tariff classification are correct.

Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G described the input as "Bright Bars" instead of "Bright Flats", where the tariff entry was correctly stated and substantive entitlement was otherwise established. The amended Rule 57G, as applied to pending cases, did not authorise rejection of credit on a purely technical defect in wording. A Board circular and prior Tribunal authority supported this view. The effect is that clerical or descriptive errors in the declaration do not defeat credit when the underlying eligibility and classification are correct.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied solely because the declaration under Rule 57G described the input as "Bright Bars" instead of "Bright Flats", when the tariff entry was correctly mentioned and the credit claim related to a pending period before the amended rule.

Analysis: The denial of credit rested only on the description used in the declaration. The tariff classification of the input was not shown to be incorrect, and the defect was merely in the wording of the Modvat declaration. The amended Rule 57G, as applied to pending Modvat cases, did not permit denial of input duty credit on such a sole technical deficiency. The Board's circular also clarified this position, and the Tribunal's prior ruling on similar facts supported allowance of credit where the substantive entitlement was otherwise established.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the sole ground of an incorrect description in the declaration, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disallowance of credit and the penalty were set aside because the claim was rejected only on a technical defect in the declaration, not on any substantive ineligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: A Modvat credit claim cannot be rejected merely for a clerical or descriptive defect in the declaration when the substantive particulars of entitlement are correctly disclosed and the governing amended provision applies to pending cases.

---