Modvat credit cannot be denied for a minor description mismatch when the input is substantively the same.

A minor discrepancy between the description of an input in a Modvat declaration and its description on invoices does not, by itself, justify denial of credit where the material is substantively the same, its basic properties and functional use are undisputed, and it falls under the same tariff heading. The variance in nomenclature between "Fibre Glass Mat" and "Fibre Glass Rovings" was treated as a difference in form rather than identity, so the denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the input was described as "Fibre Glass Mat" in the declaration under Rule 57G while the invoices described it as "Fibre Glass Rovings".

Analysis: The input declaration and the invoice description differed only in the form or shape of the same material. The basic property of the inputs, their primary functional use, and their classification under the same tariff heading were not in dispute. A minor variation in nomenclature, without any dispute as to identity in substance, cannot defeat the availment of Modvat credit where the benefit is otherwise substantively admissible.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A minor discrepancy in description between a declaration and invoices does not justify denial of Modvat credit when the input is materially the same and its functional use is undisputed.

---