Modvat credit cannot be denied for imperfect nomenclature where declared inputs share functional nexus with the goods used.

Modvat credit was treated as unavailable to be denied merely because reduction gear box and DC drive were not described with exact nomenclature in the Rule 57G declaration. The stated inputs were otherwise eligible, and the descriptions of gear box and speed regulator were accepted as having a functional nexus with the goods actually used; they were also treated as falling within the same chapter heading. The substantive entitlement to credit was therefore not defeated by a technical mismatch in wording, where the technical character and use of the inputs corresponded to the declared items.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that reduction gear box and DC drive were not specifically described in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The inputs were otherwise eligible for Modvat credit, and the declared descriptions of gear box and speed regulator had a functional nexus with reduction gear box and DC drive. The reasoning treated the items as falling within the same chapter heading and accepted that the substantive entitlement could not be defeated merely because the description was not exact, particularly when the technical function of the goods corresponded to the declared inputs.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied for want of precise nomenclature in the declaration, and the objection of the Department was rejected.

---