Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the depreciation for valuation of old capital goods removed from one unit to another was to be computed under Schedule XIV to the Companies Act, 1956 or under the Board's circulars, and whether the depreciation could exceed the 70% ceiling prescribed by the Board.
Analysis: The depreciation claimed by the assessee was based on Schedule XIV to the Companies Act, 1956, while the Revenue relied on the Central Excise circular which referred to the rates prescribed in the Customs circular for valuation of second-hand machinery. The Board's clarification stated that adequate depreciation in respect of capital goods was to be given as per the rates fixed in the Customs letter dated 26-5-1993. Both circulars were issued by CBEC, and the Board's authority to adopt the Customs-side depreciation rates for Central Excise valuation was not in dispute. The prescribed schedule allowed depreciation subject to an overall ceiling of 70%.
Conclusion: The depreciation allowable for the subject machinery could not exceed 70%, and the assessee's contrary method based on Schedule XIV to the Companies Act, 1956 was not accepted.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand based on restricting depreciation to 70% was upheld, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Board's circular expressly adopts the depreciation rates fixed on the Customs side for Central Excise valuation of capital goods, those prescribed rates govern and the depreciation cannot exceed the stipulated ceiling.