Modvat credit cannot be denied for non-specific naming where the input was declared under the correct residual heading and duty-paid documents supported it.

Modvat credit was considered admissible where M.S. Channels were declared under the residual category "others" with the correct sub-heading, even though they were not named separately in the Rule 57G declaration. The relevant classification period showed no separate specific sub-heading for M.S. Channels, and the claim was supported by challan-cum-invoice documents, certified duty payment, and undisputed receipt and use in manufacture. On that basis, the declaration was treated as sufficient and denial of credit for lack of specific naming was not justified. The connected penalty was also set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that M.S. Channels were not specifically named in the declaration filed under Rule 57G, when they were declared under the residual category as "others" with the correct sub-heading and duty-paid documents supported the claim.

Analysis: The declaration during the relevant period classified M.S. Channels under Heading 72.16 as "others" and specified sub-heading 7216.90. There was no separate specific sub-heading for M.S. Channels at the relevant time. The inputs were received under challan-cum-invoice, duty payment was certified, and there was no dispute regarding receipt or use in the manufacture of the final product. In these circumstances, the declaration was treated as sufficient and denial of credit for want of naming the item specifically was not justified.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit and the connected penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---