Modvat credit cannot be denied for omission of an exact sub-heading when the duty-paid input is otherwise identifiable.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration did not state the precise sub-heading of an input, where the input was otherwise declared, duty-paid, received, and used in manufacture. The omission to specify the exact sub-heading for copper wire was treated as a technical lapse, not a substantive defect, because the input remained identifiable and credit entitlement was otherwise established. Applying the Tribunal's earlier approach, the absence of exact classification detail was held insufficient to defeat credit on a technical ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the declaration under Rule 57G did not specify the exact sub-heading of the input, when the input itself had been declared and duty-paid goods were received and used in manufacture.

Analysis: The inputs were admittedly duty-paid and were received and used in the manufacture of the final product. The declaration filed by the assessee had mentioned copper wire as one of the inputs, though the revised declaration did not specify the sub-heading for copper wire of a particular dimension. The omission was held not to be decisive where the input was otherwise identifiable and the credit entitlement was otherwise established. Following the earlier Tribunal view that a mere difference in sub-heading description should not defeat Modvat credit, the requirement was treated as insufficient to deny the benefit on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The omission to mention the precise sub-heading did not disentitle the assessee from Modvat credit, and the appeal was allowed.

---