Modvat credit allowed despite description mismatch, since eligible factory-use tubes satisfied Rule 57Q requirements.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the declaration described the goods as boiler tubes while the invoice described them as ERWFC Ansteel Tubes, since the goods were used in the factory and fell within the eligible category under the amended Rule 57Q. The broader language of the rule covered tubes, pipes and fittings used in the factory, and the supplier's certification supported their intended use in boilers. The variation in description did not change the essential character or substantive eligibility of the goods, so denial of credit was unsustainable and credit was admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the declaration described the goods as boiler tubes while the invoice described them as ERWFC Ansteel Tubes, when the goods were used in the factory and fell within the eligible category under Rule 57Q.

Analysis: The credit was claimed after the relevant amendment to Rule 57Q, under which tubes, pipes and fittings thereof used in the factory were eligible for Modvat credit. The declaration referred to boiler tubes and the supplier certified that the tubes supplied were for use in boilers. The variation between the description in the declaration and the invoice did not alter the essential character of the goods or their use in the factory. The earlier restrictive approach was held inapplicable in view of the wider language of the rule and the later decisions recognising that a broad description is sufficient where the substantive eligibility is established.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Minor variation in description between declaration and invoice does not justify denial of Modvat credit where the goods are otherwise eligible and are used in the factory for the intended purpose.

---