https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85210 A declaration describing the input as "gear box" was treated as sufficient to cover inputs received as "reduction gear" for Modvat credit under Rule 57A because both fell under the same tariff heading and the functional difference between increasing and reducing speed did not create a legal mismatch on the facts. The department failed to show that the notification excluded reduction gear merely because of the different description, so the declared description covered the inputs received. The text further notes that no question of law arose for reference. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:37:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85210 A declaration describing the input as "gear box" was treated as sufficient to cover inputs received as "reduction gear" for Modvat credit under Rule 57A because both fell under the same tariff heading and the functional difference between increasing and reducing speed did not create a legal mismatch on the facts. The department failed to show that the notification excluded reduction gear merely because of the different description, so the declared description covered the inputs received. The text further notes that no question of law arose for reference. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85210