https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91622 Modvat credit was treated as available where the manufacturer had already declared the relevant input for use in manufacture, even though the imported document described it by the supplier's trade name. The Tribunal held that such a brand-name description did not make the input undeclared under Rule 57G when the product identity was otherwise established. It also held that a difference between the tariff classification shown in the declaration and that in the duty-paying document, by itself, was not a valid ground to deny credit once the input and declaration were identifiable. Credit was therefore not to be denied on either ground. en-us Thu, 21 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91622 Modvat credit was treated as available where the manufacturer had already declared the relevant input for use in manufacture, even though the imported document described it by the supplier's trade name. The Tribunal held that such a brand-name description did not make the input undeclared under Rule 57G when the product identity was otherwise established. It also held that a difference between the tariff classification shown in the declaration and that in the duty-paying document, by itself, was not a valid ground to deny credit once the input and declaration were identifiable. Credit was therefore not to be denied on either ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91622