Modvat credit on hypothecated capital goods required strict compliance with financing-document rules under central excise law.

Modvat credit on capital goods acquired under a bank loan and hypothecation arrangement was held to remain subject to Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court reasoned that hypothecation did not change the fact that the goods were procured through financing for their cost, so the manufacturer had to satisfy the prescribed documentary requirements, including production of the invoice and the financing-company certificate. Ownership in the assessee's name was insufficient to bypass the statutory procedure. Compliance with Rule 57R(3) was therefore mandatory, and the questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on capital goods taken under a bank loan agreement and hypothecation arrangement could be availed without complying with the procedure under Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The Court held that hypothecation does not alter the legal position that the capital goods were acquired under a financial arrangement for financing their cost. Rule 57R(3) applies where capital goods are procured under such financing, and the manufacturer seeking credit must comply with the prescribed documentary requirements, including production of the invoice and the financing-company certificate. The ownership argument was held insufficient to avoid the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: Compliance with Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory even though the capital goods were purchased in the assessee's name and hypothecated to the bank. The questions were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

---