Modvat credit cannot be denied for a chapter sub-heading mismatch when the declaration correctly describes eligible inputs.

Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the chapter sub-heading stated in the Rule 57G declaration differs from the supplier's classification when the input is otherwise identifiable and eligible under Rule 57A. The declaration gave the correct and complete description of the goods, and the dispute concerned only the sub-heading, not the nature of the input or its eligibility under the scheme. Since the substantive conditions for Modvat credit were satisfied, the classification mismatch did not defeat the claim, and the credit was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the chapter sub-heading stated in the declaration under Rule 57G differed from the supplier's classification, when the goods were correctly described and the inputs/final product were otherwise eligible under Rule 57A.

Analysis: Rule 57A governs admissibility of Modvat credit for specified inputs and final products, and the relevant notification under that rule covered the goods in question. The dispute related only to the chapter sub-heading shown in the declaration, not to the identity or description of the input. The declaration furnished the correct and complete description of the goods as required by Rule 57G. Since the substantive requirements of both rules were met, a discrepancy in sub-heading classification could not defeat the credit claim.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the credit claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the inputs are specified goods under the Modvat scheme and the declaration contains the correct description, a mere mismatch in chapter sub-heading classification does not justify denial of credit if the substantive conditions for eligibility are satisfied.

---