Modvat credit on correctly described capital goods cannot be denied merely because the supplier used a different classification.

Modvat credit could not be denied where the assessee filed a timely declaration correctly describing the capital goods as electric motors and the identity of the goods received was undisputed. A supplier's different chapter classification, by itself, did not make the declaration defective. For the item described as a distance piece or spacer, the assessee received the benefit of doubt because the descriptions were substantially similar. Credit was, however, not supported on the item described as support. Penalty could not be sustained on the basis of the denial relating to the electric motors.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the declaration described the goods as electric motors while the supplier's classification differed, and whether penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57T required a description of the goods before receipt of the capital goods. The invoices and the declaration consistently showed the goods as electric motors, and there was no dispute as to the identity of the goods received. The difference in the chapter heading adopted by the supplier did not, by itself, establish a defective declaration by the assessee. For the item described as a distance piece or spacer, the assessee was given the benefit of doubt because the descriptions were substantially similar. On the other hand, the record did not support admissibility of credit on the item described as support.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit on the electric motors was not justified, and the penalty could not be sustained on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the supplier has adopted a different classification if the assessee has filed a timely declaration correctly describing the goods and the identity of the goods received is undisputed.

---