https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100134 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the final product was described in the Rule 57G declaration under one product name while the Revenue treated the goods as differently classified. The Tribunal treated the expressions used in the documents as synonymous, relied on earlier decisions that minor discrepancies in description or classification should not defeat credit, and noted that no earlier objection had been raised by the Revenue. On that basis, the declaration was considered sufficient to cover the product in question and the disallowance of Modvat credit was found unjustified. en-us Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:54:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100134 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the final product was described in the Rule 57G declaration under one product name while the Revenue treated the goods as differently classified. The Tribunal treated the expressions used in the documents as synonymous, relied on earlier decisions that minor discrepancies in description or classification should not defeat credit, and noted that no earlier objection had been raised by the Revenue. On that basis, the declaration was considered sufficient to cover the product in question and the disallowance of Modvat credit was found unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100134