Modvat credit cannot be denied for a wrong sub-heading when the inputs were otherwise properly declared and identified.

Modvat credit could not be denied where the assessee had declared the inputs as aluminium coils and sheets, and the only defect was an incorrect sub-heading in the declaration. The Tribunal treated the mistake as a technical error because the inputs were otherwise properly identified, and distinguished cases where no declaration had been filed at all. It held that denying credit on such a ground would place a minor procedural lapse above substantive compliance. The incorrect sub-heading therefore did not justify refusal of Modvat credit, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration filed under the Central Excise Rules described the inputs under an incorrect sub-heading, though the inputs were otherwise identified as aluminium coils and sheets.

Analysis: The declaration dated 28-4-1989 specifically mentioned aluminium coils and sheets as inputs. The dispute was only about the sub-heading mentioned in the declaration, which did not correspond exactly with the thickness classification later relied upon by the department. The Tribunal held that the facts were not comparable to cases where no declaration was filed at all. Where the input is declared and the mistake is only in the technical description or sub-heading, the benefit cannot be denied if the credit is otherwise permissible. The denial of credit on this ground would elevate a minor procedural defect over the substantive compliance made by the assessee.

Conclusion: The incorrect mention of the sub-heading did not justify denial of Modvat credit, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied on account of a minor procedural error in the declaration when the inputs are otherwise declared and the substantive requirement of identification is satisfied.

---