Modvat credit cannot be denied for a trade name when evidence shows it matches the declared input.

Modvat credit was allowed where an input declared under Rule 57G in generic chemical terms was supplied under a trade name, because reliable evidence showed the trade name and the declared input were the same substance. The tribunal held that credit could not be denied merely on nomenclature when the identity of the goods was sufficiently established. As credit on the disputed input was admissible, the related penalty also could not stand and was deleted. The unchallenged disallowance relating to plastic powder remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit was admissible on pilene ultra on the basis that it was only a trade name for polyethylene already declared as an input under Rule 57G; (ii) whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit was admissible on pilene ultra on the basis that it was only a trade name for polyethylene already declared as an input under Rule 57G.

Analysis: The manufacturer's certificate showed that pilene ultra was the trade name for polyethylene. The declaration filed under Rule 57G already covered polyethylene as an input. On that material, the identity of the input was sufficiently established and the declared description covered the goods in substance.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible on pilene ultra, and the disallowance was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: Since credit on pilene ultra was held admissible and the credit relating to plastic powder had already been reversed, the basis for sustaining the penalty did not remain.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified by allowing credit on pilene ultra and deleting the penalty, while leaving the unchallenged disallowance on plastic powder undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an input is declared in generic chemical terms under Rule 57G, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the product was supplied under a trade name, if the trade name is shown by reliable evidence to be the same declared input.

---