Modvat credit cannot be denied for trade-name description or classification mismatch when the input is otherwise identified.

Modvat credit was treated as available where the manufacturer had already declared the relevant input for use in manufacture, even though the imported document described it by the supplier's trade name. The Tribunal held that such a brand-name description did not make the input undeclared under Rule 57G when the product identity was otherwise established. It also held that a difference between the tariff classification shown in the declaration and that in the duty-paying document, by itself, was not a valid ground to deny credit once the input and declaration were identifiable. Credit was therefore not to be denied on either ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for want of a separate declaration in respect of the imported input described under the supplier's trade name, and for difference between the tariff classification shown in the declaration and that in the duty-paying document.

Analysis: The declaration requirement under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules was satisfied because the manufacturer had already declared the relevant input, Polybutylene Terephthalate Resin, for use in manufacture. The mere fact that the imported papers described the product by the supplier's brand name did not mean that the input was undeclared. The Tribunal also held that a difference in tariff classification between the declaration and the duty-paying document was not, by itself, a ground to deny credit where the input identity was otherwise established and the declaration had been filed.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the grounds of trade name description or differing tariff classification, and the claim was allowed.

---