https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95560 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration and the supplier's invoice referred to different tariff headings, where the inputs were otherwise identified and their use in manufacture was shown. The declaration described the material as a mineral-based special purpose oil used for slotting, and the process details and end-use were furnished. In the absence of proof that the goods received were different from the declared inputs or were not used in manufacture, a discrepancy in description or classification in the invoice did not by itself defeat credit. Credit was therefore admissible. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:30:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95560 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the Rule 57G declaration and the supplier's invoice referred to different tariff headings, where the inputs were otherwise identified and their use in manufacture was shown. The declaration described the material as a mineral-based special purpose oil used for slotting, and the process details and end-use were furnished. In the absence of proof that the goods received were different from the declared inputs or were not used in manufacture, a discrepancy in description or classification in the invoice did not by itself defeat credit. Credit was therefore admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95560