Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor nomenclature differences when inputs and components are otherwise identifiable.

Modvat credit could not be denied for a minor discrepancy in the description of inputs where the declared goods and the supplier's invoices related to items falling under the same tariff heading and the inputs remained identifiable. Credit also could not be disallowed because double tension and single tension string parts were not separately declared when their constituent parts had already been disclosed in the declaration and challans. The operative principle was that a mere variation in nomenclature, without any dispute as to identity or disclosure of the relevant components, is not a valid ground to reject credit; the denial of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the inputs were described differently in the declaration and in the supplier's invoices when both related goods fell under the same tariff heading. (ii) Whether credit could be disallowed on the ground that double tension and single tension string parts were not separately declared when the parts making up the strings had been declared and reflected in the challans.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the inputs were described differently in the declaration and in the supplier's invoices when both related goods fell under the same tariff heading.

Analysis: The discrepancy was only in the description of the goods. The declared inputs and the goods received from the supplier were treated as falling under the same tariff heading, and the differences were of a minor nature. Such minor variation in nomenclature, without any dispute about the identity of the inputs for Modvat purposes, was not a valid basis to reject credit.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was not justified and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether credit could be disallowed on the ground that double tension and single tension string parts were not separately declared when the parts making up the strings had been declared and reflected in the challans.

Analysis: The declaration covered each component of the double tension and single tension strings, and the supplier's challans also set out the constituent parts of those strings. Since the relevant components were duly disclosed, the objection that the goods had not been declared was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The disallowance of credit on this ground was not justified and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order denying Modvat credit was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied for a mere minor discrepancy in description when the inputs are otherwise identifiable and fall under the same tariff heading, and credit also cannot be disallowed where the constituent parts of the declared goods have been duly disclosed.

---