Modvat credit on licensed capital goods turned on genuine written arrangement, while extended limitation and penalties were sustained in principle.

Modvat credit on capital goods taken under a leave and licence arrangement depended on lawful receipt under a genuine written arrangement, not on absolute ownership alone; the document text says the majority treated the alleged agreement as belated and colourable, and the credit issue was ultimately resolved in the assessee's favour by the third member and majority order. On limitation and penalties, the majority found nondisclosure of material facts justified invocation of the extended period and sustained penalty action in principle, while reducing the quantum of penalties. The final majority view is stated to have set aside the impugned order and granted substantive relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit on capital goods received under a leave and licence arrangement was admissible though the assessee was not the absolute owner; (ii) whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period and penalties imposed for alleged suppression.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit on capital goods received under a leave and licence arrangement was admissible though the assessee was not the absolute owner.

Analysis: The majority held that ownership by itself was not the decisive test for capital goods credit, but the assessee had to show lawful receipt of the goods under a valid arrangement such as lease, hire-purchase or loan, supported by a written and genuine agreement. On the facts, the alleged agreement was treated by the majority as a belated and colourable document that did not satisfactorily establish a permissible mode of acquisition.

Conclusion: The credit was not accepted on the basis of the assessee's case as presented before the Division Bench, but the point ultimately stood resolved in favour of the assessee by the third member and the majority order.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period and penalties imposed for alleged suppression.

Analysis: The majority found that material particulars relating to the nature of acquisition and the supposed agreement were not properly disclosed, and that the extended limitation period was therefore correctly invoked. However, while sustaining the demand, the majority reduced the penalties in view of the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The extended period and consequential penalty action were upheld in principle, though the quantum of penalties was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The final majority view set aside the impugned order and granted relief to the assessee, so the appeal succeeded in substance.

---