Modvat credit cannot be denied for clerical register errors or minor classification mismatches when substantive conditions are met.

Modvat credit was stated to be available where capital goods were received and installed in the factory, even if RG-23C Part-I entries contained a clerical quantity mismatch with the invoice. A minor variation between the invoice classification and the declaration also did not justify denial of credit when the goods were admittedly received and the relevant chapter heading remained the same. The note emphasizes that clerical or insubstantial discrepancies cannot defeat credit when the substantive conditions for Modvat entitlement are satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the quantities of capital goods entered in RG-23C Part-I did not match the invoice description, despite receipt and installation of the goods in the factory. (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the basis of a minor variation in the classification shown in the invoice and the declaration, when the goods were received in the factory and the chapter heading remained the same.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the quantities of capital goods entered in RG-23C Part-I did not match the invoice description, despite receipt and installation of the goods in the factory.

Analysis: The discrepancy in the RG-23C Part-I entries was explained as a clerical mistake, and the assessee offered to rectify the register. The receipt of the capital goods in the factory and their installation were not disputed by the Revenue.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on this ground, and the disallowance was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the basis of a minor variation in the classification shown in the invoice and the declaration, when the goods were received in the factory and the chapter heading remained the same.

Analysis: The variation in classification was only minor, while the goods were admittedly received in the factory and the relevant chapter heading was the same. Such a discrepancy was held insufficient to justify denial of credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on this ground, and the disallowance was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the Modvat credit claimed, with consequential relief following from allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied for clerical errors or minor classification discrepancies when receipt and use of the goods are undisputed and the substantive conditions for credit are satisfied.

---