2017 (4) TMI 850 - HC - Central Excise

High Court directs reconsideration of appeal due to lack of evidence on depreciation claimed on capital goods

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, directing a reconsideration of the appeal on its merits due to lack of evidence on depreciation claimed ... Maintainability of appeal - Appellant has failed to submit the income tax assessment order to substantiate that the depreciation claimed on the capital goods was reversed. In absence of evidence, the matter not being possible to conclude, appeal is rejected accordingly - Held that: - It is not disputed by Ms.Hemalatha, who appears for the Revenue, that such evidence was placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, both the counsels are agreed that the impugned Judgment and order of the Tribunal needs to be set aside so a decision on merits can be rendered in the matter - appeal maintained - Tribunal to decide the appeal of the appellant/assesse on merits. Issues:Challenge to order dated 07.10.2016 - rejection of appeal due to lack of evidence on depreciation claimed on capital goods.Analysis:1. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had rejected the appeal solely on the ground that the appellant had not provided evidence to substantiate the reversal of depreciation claimed on capital goods, as required by Rule 4(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.2. Both counsels agreed that the assessment was conducted under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the only evidence that could have been presented in such a situation was a copy of the return with the necessary receipt, which was indeed submitted to the Tribunal.3. The Court noted that the Revenue counsel did not dispute the submission of this evidence. Therefore, it was unanimously agreed that the Tribunal's judgment needed to be set aside for a decision on the merits of the case.4. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed it to reconsider the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the importance of a decision based on the evidence presented.5. The Court allowed the appeal, resulting in the closure of the pending miscellaneous petition, with no specific order regarding costs. The decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment based on the evidence provided and the legal requirements under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and the Income Tax Act, 1961.