Modvat credit and tariff-heading error in declaration does not, by itself, defeat entitlement when substantive particulars are ?

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a Rule 57G declaration carried an incorrect tariff heading when the inputs and final products were correctly described. The defect was limited to the wrong classification entry for bars and rods, and the substantive particulars of the declaration were otherwise in order. Applying its earlier view, CEGAT held that a classification mistake by itself does not disentitle a manufacturer to credit. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore not justified, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G mentioned an incorrect tariff heading for the inputs despite correct description of the inputs and final products.

Analysis: The declaration disclosed the inputs and final products, but the tariff entry for bars and rods was stated under Heading 7215.90 instead of 7214.90. The defect was only in the wrong tariff entry. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that a mistake in classification, where the substantive particulars of the declaration are otherwise in order, does not by itself disentitle a manufacturer to Modvat credit.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on the basis of the incorrect tariff heading was not justified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---