Modvat credit cannot be denied for technical nomenclature mismatches where no mala fides or fraud is shown.

Variation in the nomenclature of inputs in declarations and invoices was treated as a technical discrepancy that did not defeat substantive Modvat credit entitlement. The scheme was applied as beneficial legislation and interpreted liberally because there was no evidence of mala fides or intent to defraud revenue. On that basis, credit could not be denied. The absence of fraudulent intent also meant the penalty had no sustainable foundation, so penalty was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for variation in nomenclature of inputs in the declaration and invoices, and whether penalty was justified.

Analysis: The discrepancy was treated as technical and not a grave violation affecting the substantive entitlement to Modvat credit. The scheme was viewed as beneficial legislation warranting a liberal approach where no evidence showed any mala fides or intent to defraud revenue. In the absence of such evidence, the basis for penalty also failed.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the facts, and the penalty was unjustified.

---