Modvat credit cannot be denied for missing financier certificate when duty payment is admitted and default is beyond control.

Modvat credit on countervailing duty paid on capital goods could not be denied merely because the financier's certificate was not produced, where duty payment was undisputed and the assessee had informed the financier that credit would be claimed. Rule 57R required such certification in lease or loan financing arrangements and linked the credit claim to denial of depreciation on the duty component under income-tax law. The non-production of the certificate arose from a dispute with the financier and was beyond the assessee's control. The substantive credit was therefore not defeated by this procedural lapse, and the benefit was allowed to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on countervailing duty paid on capital goods could be denied for non-production of the financier's certificate when the duty had been paid and the assessee had intimated the financier of its decision to avail credit.

Analysis: Rule 57R of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required the manufacturer, in a lease or loan financing arrangement, to produce a certificate from the financing company and also contemplated that depreciation should not be claimed under the income-tax law on the portion of value representing the duty component. The duty payment itself was undisputed and the appellants had deposited the duty amount to the financier and informed it that Modvat credit would be availed. The failure to furnish the certificate was attributable to a dispute with the financier and was beyond the appellants' control. The statutory scheme and the income-tax explanation relied upon showed that once credit was claimed, depreciation on that duty component could not be claimed by the financier, and the absence of the certificate did not justify denial of the substantive benefit.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the substantive credit could not be defeated by non-production of a certificate where the duty payment was admitted and the statutory consequence against depreciation followed from the claim of credit.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive tax benefit cannot be denied for non-compliance with a procedural condition when the default is beyond the assessee's control and the statutory scheme itself prevents the corresponding depreciation claim on the duty component once credit is claimed.

---