Modvat credit cannot be denied for a mere misdescription in the declaration when duty-paid inputs were received and used.

Modvat credit could not be denied where duty-paid inputs were actually received and used in manufacture, and the declaration under Rule 57G described them only with a mistaken but broadly identifiable label. Copper billets and copper wire rods fell under the same tariff heading and attracted the same duty, so the incorrect description was treated as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect. The declaration and supporting records sufficiently evidenced receipt and use of the inputs, and there was no revenue loss. Credit was therefore admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the declaration under Rule 57G described the input as copper billets instead of copper wire bars, when the duty-paid inputs were actually received and used in the manufacture of the final product.

Analysis: The inputs were duty paid and were admittedly used in the manufacture of the end-product. Copper billets and copper wire rods fell under the same tariff heading and attracted the same rate of duty. In that situation, an inaccurate description in the declaration was only a procedural irregularity and not a substantive defect. The declaration and supporting records sufficiently showed receipt and use of copper for the final products. The Board's circular also supported the view that credit should not be disallowed where broad descriptions are filed and the inputs are properly accounted for in the statutory or private records.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied on the ground of misdescription, and the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid inputs are actually received and used in the manufacture of the final product, a mistaken but broadly identifiable description in the declaration does not defeat Modvat credit if the inputs fall within the same tariff description and there is no revenue loss.

---