https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109787 Input credit cannot be denied merely because the invoice description differs from the description used by the assessee where the supplier confirms that the goods are functionally identical. The supplier's letter showed that both products performed the same stabilising function, had a similar reaction mechanism, were used in the same applications, and were classifiable under the same tariff heading, Chapter 3812.00. On that basis, the nomenclature difference on the invoice was not sufficient to defeat credit, and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:16:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109787 Input credit cannot be denied merely because the invoice description differs from the description used by the assessee where the supplier confirms that the goods are functionally identical. The supplier's letter showed that both products performed the same stabilising function, had a similar reaction mechanism, were used in the same applications, and were classifiable under the same tariff heading, Chapter 3812.00. On that basis, the nomenclature difference on the invoice was not sufficient to defeat credit, and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109787