Modvat credit cannot be denied for a wrong tariff sub-heading when duty-paid inputs are otherwise identifiable and used in manufacture

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration mentioned an incorrect tariff sub-heading, where the duty-paid inputs were otherwise described with sufficient clarity and were used in manufacture. The Tribunal treated the misclassification as a technical discrepancy, not a defect that prejudiced identification of the goods, and noted there was no finding that the inputs were not used in producing the final product. On that basis, the wrong sub-heading alone was held insufficient to defeat credit, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G mentioned an incorrect tariff sub-heading, when the inputs were otherwise identified by description and were used in manufacture.

Analysis: The declaration disclosed the physical description of the inputs, and the discrepancy related only to tariff classification. The Tribunal noted that tariff classification is not always within the assessee's control and that there was no finding that the duty-paid inputs had not been used in the manufacture of the final product. Following the principle that a mere misdescription of the sub-heading, without prejudice to identification of the goods, should not defeat credit, the Tribunal held that the credit could not be disallowed on this ground alone.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied solely for the incorrect mention of the tariff sub-heading, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid inputs are identifiable by description and are used in manufacture, a wrong tariff sub-heading in the Modvat declaration does not by itself justify denial of credit.

---