Modvat credit cannot be denied merely for differing descriptions when tariff classification and use in manufacture are undisputed.

Modvat credit could not be denied where the input was classified under the same tariff sub-heading in the declaration and in the bill of entry, and the Revenue did not dispute receipt of the goods or their use in manufacture. The description used for the input was treated as immaterial because the relevant classification was correctly declared and the factual conditions for credit were satisfied. On that basis, the declaration was held sufficient and the denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the input, though declared under the relevant tariff heading in the Modvat declaration, was described differently in the bill of entry and declaration.

Analysis: The input in question was assessed under the same tariff sub-heading for the purpose of additional duty, and the Modvat declaration also specified the corresponding classification of the input. The Revenue did not dispute receipt of the goods in the factory or their use in the manufacture of the final product. On these facts, the declaration was treated as sufficient and the benefit could not be denied merely because of the description used for the input.

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

---