Modvat credit cannot be refused for a minor description defect when inputs are identifiable, used in manufacture, and duty-paid.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration did not describe the inputs in exact terms when the declaration and gate pass substantially identified them and their use in manufacture was undisputed. The department also did not dispute that the inputs were duty-paid. On those facts, the incorrect or incomplete description was treated as a minor technical lapse, and the defect was held curable. The contrary authorities cited were distinguished on facts, and the omission was held not to disentitle the assessee to Modvat credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G did not specifically mention the inputs in exact terms, and whether the lapse was a curable technical defect.

Analysis: The declaration and gate pass description substantially covered the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product. The dispute was confined to the absence of exact wording, while the department did not dispute the use of the inputs or their duty-paid character. In these circumstances, the incorrect or incomplete description was treated as a minor technical lapse. The cited contrary authorities were found distinguishable on the facts.

Conclusion: The omission was condonable and did not disentitle the respondent to Modvat credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the existence, use, and duty-paid character of inputs are not in dispute, a minor defect in their description in the declaration under Rule 57G does not by itself bar Modvat credit.

---