Modvat credit cannot be denied for descriptive mismatch in invoices and declarations when goods received are undisputed.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declaration described aluminium inputs as strips while the supplier's invoices referred to extrusion bars and rods, where the contract number matched and the identity, size, quantity and receipt of the goods were undisputed. Rule 57G, as clarified by Notification No. 7/99-C.E. dated 09-02-1999, was applied to hold that credit should not be refused for incomplete particulars or other procedural non-compliance in the declaration when no substantive defect affected entitlement. On that basis, the denial of credit was unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration described the inputs as aluminium strips while the supplier's invoices described the same goods as extrusion bars and rods, when the contract, quantity, size, and receipt of the goods were not in dispute.

Analysis: The appellant had placed orders for aluminium strips of size 20x6 mm and the same contracted goods were received under invoices bearing the same contract number, although the supplier used a different description. The Revenue did not dispute the identity, size, or receipt of the inputs. The amended position under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, as clarified by Notification No. 7/99-C.E. dated 09-02-1999, provides that credit is not to be denied merely because the declaration does not contain all particulars or because of non-compliance with the other requirements of sub-rule (1). The input description in the declaration and invoices, read with the undisputed facts of receipt and identity of goods, showed no substantive defect affecting entitlement to credit.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was not sustainable and was set aside; the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit.

---