https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94765 Modvat credit could not be denied where the declaration under Rule 57G identified the correct tariff heading and the inputs received, though described as "Kerox Grey" under a different sub-heading, were shown by the manufacturer's certificate to be the same goods as the declared pigment. The inputs were received, duty-paid, and used in the final product, and there was no dispute on utilisation. In these circumstances, a purely technical objection based on sub-heading difference or brand-name description was insufficient to disallow credit, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:37:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94765 Modvat credit could not be denied where the declaration under Rule 57G identified the correct tariff heading and the inputs received, though described as "Kerox Grey" under a different sub-heading, were shown by the manufacturer's certificate to be the same goods as the declared pigment. The inputs were received, duty-paid, and used in the final product, and there was no dispute on utilisation. In these circumstances, a purely technical objection based on sub-heading difference or brand-name description was insufficient to disallow credit, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94765