Modvat credit on financed capital goods cannot be denied solely for missing third-party certificate where duty was paid.

Modvat credit under Rule 57R(3) for capital goods financed through a third-party arrangement was treated as available where duty had already been paid and the financing-company certificate could not be produced because of a dispute beyond the claimant's control. The certificate requirement was regarded as procedural rather than an absolute condition, so its non-production was not fatal on these facts. The note also records that, under Explanation 9 to Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, the financing company could not claim depreciation on the duty element already taken as Modvat credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for non-production of the certificate from the financing company required under Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the duty on capital goods had otherwise been paid.

Analysis: The credit scheme under Rule 57R(3) permits availment of credit on capital goods acquired through financing arrangements, subject to production of a certificate from the financing company and the related agreement. The decisive consideration was that the respondent had already paid the countervailing duty and the failure to produce the certificate arose from a dispute with the financing company, a circumstance not fully within the respondent's control. The requirement to furnish the certificate was treated as a procedural condition and non-compliance with that requirement, in the facts of the case, was held not to be fatal to the entitlement to credit. The Court also noted that, in view of Explanation 9 to Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the financing company could not claim depreciation on the duty component already taken as Modvat credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied solely for want of the certificate, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory condition for claiming credit that depends on the acts of a third party and lies beyond the claimant's control cannot, when the substantive duty payment is otherwise established, be treated as an inflexible bar to the benefit.

---