MODVAT credit cannot be denied for a minor declaration defect when the specified input and substantive conditions are satisfied.

MODVAT credit could not be denied where the Rule 57G declaration described the input in broad terms but omitted that the wire was zinc-coated, because both coated and uncoated wire were specified inputs under the same tariff sub-heading. The department had already accepted the declarations and gate passes, and there was no allegation that a non-specified input was used or that the substantive conditions for credit were unmet. A minor descriptive discrepancy was treated as a technical defect only, insufficient to defeat the accrued entitlement. The denial of MODVAT credit was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether MODVAT credit could be denied on the ground that the declaration under Rule 57G described the input in broad terms and did not specifically mention that the wire was coated with zinc, when both coated and uncoated wire fell under the same tariff heading and were specified inputs.

Analysis: The declaration and the actual input differed only in a minor descriptive detail. Both varieties of wire were specified inputs for MODVAT and fell under the same tariff sub-heading. The department had accepted the declarations and gate passes earlier, and there was no allegation of use of a non-specified input or improper credit. A procedural or technical variation in description could not defeat a substantive entitlement where the benefit itself was otherwise available.

Conclusion: MODVAT credit could not be denied on the basis of the stated discrepancy, and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A minor or technical defect in the declaration does not justify denial of MODVAT credit where the input actually used is a specified input and the substantive conditions for the benefit are satisfied.

---