Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor description differences when inputs are identifiable, duty-paid, and used in manufacture.

Modvat credit cannot be denied for a minor, non-fraudulent variation in the description of inputs in the Rule 57G declaration when the goods are otherwise identifiable, duty-paid, and used in manufacture. The declaration and invoices related to the same inputs, and the goods were reflected in statutory records. In light of the 1999 amendment to Rule 57G and the Board circular, substantive entitlement to credit prevailed over a minor nomenclature difference. Credit was therefore admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for minor variation in the description of inputs in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the inputs were the same and were received under duty-paying documents and used in manufacture.

Analysis: The declaration and the invoices were found to relate to the same goods, with only a minor variation in nomenclature. The inputs were received with duty-paying documents, used in manufacture of finished goods, and recorded in statutory records. In such circumstances, and in view of the 1999 amendment to Rule 57G, the credit could not be denied merely because the description in the declaration was not identical in every detail. Support was also drawn from the Board circular and the principle that minor descriptive discrepancies do not defeat substantive entitlement to credit.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit on the ground of minor variation in the description of inputs was not justified; the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be disallowed for a minor, non-fraudulent variation in the description of inputs in the declaration where the goods are otherwise identifiable, duty-paid, and used in manufacture.

---