Modvat credit cannot be denied for a mere sub-heading or description mismatch when the inputs are otherwise correctly identified.

Modvat credit could not be denied where the declaration under Rule 57G identified the correct tariff heading and the inputs received, though described as "Kerox Grey" under a different sub-heading, were shown by the manufacturer's certificate to be the same goods as the declared pigment. The inputs were received, duty-paid, and used in the final product, and there was no dispute on utilisation. In these circumstances, a purely technical objection based on sub-heading difference or brand-name description was insufficient to disallow credit, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the input was described in the declaration as "pigments" under Rule 57G while the goods received were invoiced as "Kerox Grey" under a different sub-heading of the same tariff heading.

Analysis: The declaration had identified the relevant heading, and the input received by the assessee fell under the same heading though under a different sub-heading. The manufacturer's certificate stated that "Kerox Grey" and the declared pigment were one and the same, and the goods were used for the same manufacturing purpose. There was no dispute about duty payment, receipt of the inputs, or their utilisation in the final product. On these facts, a purely technical objection based on sub-heading difference or brand-name description could not justify denial of credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the technical ground of difference in sub-heading or description, and the appeal was allowed.

---