https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86831 Modvat credit under Rule 57G could not be denied where duty-paid inputs were actually received in the factory and used in manufacture, merely because the declaration or duty-paying documents contained minor differences in description or tariff classification. The declaration served a notice-and-verification function, and the scheme had to be construed to advance its beneficial purpose rather than defeat credit on immaterial discrepancies. Variations in nomenclature, wider or more detailed descriptions, or a supplier's tariff sub-heading could not by themselves justify denial, especially when the recipient had no control over the supplier's classification and the goods were identifiable as the inputs used. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:33:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86831 Modvat credit under Rule 57G could not be denied where duty-paid inputs were actually received in the factory and used in manufacture, merely because the declaration or duty-paying documents contained minor differences in description or tariff classification. The declaration served a notice-and-verification function, and the scheme had to be construed to advance its beneficial purpose rather than defeat credit on immaterial discrepancies. Variations in nomenclature, wider or more detailed descriptions, or a supplier's tariff sub-heading could not by themselves justify denial, especially when the recipient had no control over the supplier's classification and the goods were identifiable as the inputs used. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86831