MODVAT credit on plywood inputs cannot be denied for failure to separately name commercial plywood in the declaration.

MODVAT credit could not be denied merely because commercial plywood was not separately named in the Rule 57G declaration where plywood had already been declared as an input. The dispute was limited to whether commercial plywood was a distinct item requiring separate mention, and the same Bench's earlier decisions had held that a broader declaration of plywood was sufficient. No new ground was shown to depart from that view, so the disallowance of credit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether MODVAT credit could be denied on commercial plywood on the ground that the declaration under Rule 57G mentioned plywood and laminates but did not specifically mention commercial plywood.

Analysis: The declaration had already covered plywood as an input. The dispute turned only on whether commercial plywood had to be separately named as a distinct item. The earlier decisions of the same Bench had already held that once plywood is declared, a separate mention of commercial plywood is unnecessary and credit cannot be refused merely for want of such specific nomenclature. No fresh ground was shown to depart from that view.

Conclusion: MODVAT credit could not be denied for non-declaration of commercial plywood separately, and the disallowance was unsustainable.

---