https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99398 A minor discrepancy between the description of an input in a Modvat declaration and its description on invoices does not, by itself, justify denial of credit where the material is substantively the same, its basic properties and functional use are undisputed, and it falls under the same tariff heading. The variance in nomenclature between "Fibre Glass Mat" and "Fibre Glass Rovings" was treated as a difference in form rather than identity, so the denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:53:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99398 A minor discrepancy between the description of an input in a Modvat declaration and its description on invoices does not, by itself, justify denial of credit where the material is substantively the same, its basic properties and functional use are undisputed, and it falls under the same tariff heading. The variance in nomenclature between "Fibre Glass Mat" and "Fibre Glass Rovings" was treated as a difference in form rather than identity, so the denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99398