Specific input disclosure under MODVAT rules was essential; a tariff-heading reference alone could not support credit.

MODVAT credit was denied because the Rule 57G declaration identified only the tariff heading of the input and did not specifically describe runners and risers. The Tribunal treated a declaration naming the particular inputs as a substantive requirement of the MODVAT scheme, not a curable procedural defect, and held that general reference to a tariff heading was insufficient where the input itself was not specifically stated. The omission therefore disentitled the assessee to MODVAT credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether MODVAT credit was admissible when the declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 mentioned the tariff heading of the input but did not specifically name runners and risers as inputs.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that a manufacturer seeking MODVAT credit must file a declaration specifying the particular inputs intended to be used. Mere mention of the tariff heading was not enough where the input itself was not specifically described. Following earlier decisions, the Tribunal treated the omission as going to the substantive requirement of the scheme and not as a curable procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The omission to specifically mention runners and risers in the declaration under Rule 57G disentitled the assessee to MODVAT credit.

---