Modvat credit cannot be denied for classification mismatch alone when inputs were duly declared in the prescribed declaration.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the tariff classification in the Rule 57G declaration differed from the classification shown in gate passes, where the inputs themselves were duly declared. The discrepancy was confined to classification and there was no dispute about the description or identity of the goods. A mismatch in heading, without non-declaration of inputs, was therefore insufficient to refuse credit, and the order allowing Modvat credit was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the classification shown in the Rule 57G declaration did not tally with the classification shown in the gate passes, when the inputs themselves had been declared.

Analysis: The declaration requirement under Rule 57G was not treated as breached merely because of a mismatch in tariff heading or classification. The notices did not allege non-declaration of the inputs, and the record showed that the inputs were in fact disclosed in the declaration. The dispute was confined to classification, and classification is not always uniform; a difference between the heading in the declaration and that in the gate passes, without dispute as to the description and identity of the goods, was held insufficient to deny credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground of classification mismatch alone, and the appeal was rejected against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing Modvat credit was left undisturbed, as the alleged discrepancy concerned only classification and not non-declaration of the inputs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the inputs are duly declared, a mere difference in their classification between the declaration and the gate passes does not by itself justify denial of Modvat credit.

---