Modvat credit denied for misdescribed inputs where slag pots were distinct from declared ingot moulds despite same chapter heading.

Modvat credit was denied where the declaration referred to C.I. ingot moulds but the duty-paying documents described slag pots, because the two were treated as distinct goods rather than a minor misdescription. The mere fact that both items fell under the same chapter heading was held insufficient, since the protection for technical lapses applies only when the declaration and documents broadly match and the inputs are genuinely comparable. Earlier authority was found inapplicable on those facts. Credit on the slag pots was therefore inadmissible, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible where the declaration described the input as C.I. ingot moulds, while the duty-paying documents described the goods as slag pots, though both were shown under the same chapter heading.

Analysis: The declared item and the item shown in the modvatable documents were not merely differently described but were distinct goods. Reliance on earlier authority was held to be misplaced because the protection against minor technical lapses applies only where the broad description in the declaration and the documents is akin and the inputs fall under the same heading in a comparable manner. Mere identity of chapter heading was held insufficient when the goods themselves were materially different, since multiple distinct items may fall under the same heading.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible on the goods described as slag pots, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---