https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103814 Modvat credit could not be denied for a merely technical mismatch in the description of inputs where the declaration and invoices referred to the same tariff sub-heading and there was no dispute about the identity of the goods. The additional words in the declaration, describing the inputs as defective or rejected cast articles, did not displace the broader matching description in the invoices as unprocessed M.I. castings. Rule 57G, as amended, reinforced that credit should not be refused simply because the declaration omitted every detail or did not satisfy each formal requirement. Credit was therefore admissible and denial on the ground of description mismatch was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:05:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103814 Modvat credit could not be denied for a merely technical mismatch in the description of inputs where the declaration and invoices referred to the same tariff sub-heading and there was no dispute about the identity of the goods. The additional words in the declaration, describing the inputs as defective or rejected cast articles, did not displace the broader matching description in the invoices as unprocessed M.I. castings. Rule 57G, as amended, reinforced that credit should not be refused simply because the declaration omitted every detail or did not satisfy each formal requirement. Credit was therefore admissible and denial on the ground of description mismatch was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103814