Capital goods credit cannot be refused for different nomenclature when the declared and supplied goods are substantively the same.

Capital goods credit cannot be denied merely because the supplier's invoice describes the same product by a different nomenclature, where the assessee has filed a declaration for the relevant product. The governing principle is that different persons may label the same goods differently, and the declaration requirement remains satisfied if the goods received are not substantively different from those declared. On that basis, the credit claim was treated as allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether capital goods credit could be denied merely because the goods described in the declaration and the goods described in the supplier's invoices bore different nomenclature, though the assessee had filed declarations for the relevant products.

Analysis: The assessee had filed declarations covering Module and Polishing Fixture for availment of capital goods credit. The goods received were described in the invoices as FMA Ronda and inspection fixture. The decision turned on whether the difference in description showed that the declared goods and received goods were different in substance. It was held that the same goods may be described differently by different persons, and a declaration does not fail merely because the supplier uses another nomenclature, so long as the product received is not different from the product declared. On that basis, the requirement of the applicable declaration rule was treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: Capital goods credit could not be denied on the ground of different nomenclature, and the assessee was eligible for the credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has filed a declaration for the relevant product, credit cannot be denied solely because the supplier describes the same product differently, unless the goods received are actually different from the goods declared.

---