Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor invoice-description differences where the inputs are substantively the same.

Minor discrepancies in the nomenclature of inputs between invoices and the Rule 57G declaration do not justify denial of Modvat credit where the goods are otherwise the same by description and classification. The variation was only in wording, with no doubt about the substantive identity of the inputs, so credit could not be denied and penalty was not sustainable. The assessee was entitled to Modvat credit with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied and penalty sustained merely because the description of inputs in the invoices differed slightly from the description given in the declaration filed under Rule 57G.

Analysis: The discrepancy was only in nomenclature. The inputs covered by the declaration and the invoices were treated as the same goods by description and classification. A minor variation in the wording of duty paying documents, where the substantive identity of the inputs is not in doubt, does not justify denial of Modvat credit or resort to penal action.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was not justified and the assessee was entitled to the credit with consequential relief.

---