2018 (5) TMI 813 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants' Cenvat Credit denied for simultaneous tax benefits, lack of evidence. Judgment remands for further action.

M/s. Sangam India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Udaipur

The appellants were denied Cenvat Credit due to simultaneous claiming of depreciation under the Income Tax Act. The original demand of &8377;18 lakhs ... CENVAT credit - capital goods - denial on the ground that they have simultaneously availed depreciation in respect of the same, in terms of provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act - Held that: the appellants have filed a Chartered Accountant’s certificate certifying that credit taken on capital goods were not capitalized in the books of accounts. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that apart from the said CA’s certificate the appellant have not submitted the evidence to prove their submission and hence, in the absence of any evidence, the adjudicating authority has rightly disallowed the credit. The dispute would get solved if the Income Tax return for the relevant period be produced which would clearly establish whether depreciation has been claimed or not - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit due to simultaneous availing of depreciation under Income Tax Act.In this case, the appellants were denied the benefit of Cenvat Credit on duty paid for capital goods as they had also claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The original demand was &8377;18 lakhs, but a report from the appellants' Range officer showed that the depreciation claim was only &8377;1,05,057. Consequently, the original adjudicating authority reduced the demand to &8377;17.31 lakhs and confirmed &8377;1,05,057. The appellants appealed this decision.During the proceedings, the appellants presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating that the credit taken on capital goods was not capitalized in their books of accounts. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that besides the CA's certificate, no other evidence was submitted by the appellants to support their claim. Due to the lack of evidence, the adjudicating authority rightly disallowed the credit.The Commissioner (Appeals) placed a negative onus on the appellants to prove their claim, which the Revenue did not counter with any evidence showing that the appellants had indeed claimed depreciation under the Income Tax Act. To resolve the dispute, it was suggested that the Income Tax return for the relevant period should be produced, as it would definitively establish whether depreciation had been claimed or not.In light of the above, the judgment set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further action. The appellants were granted an opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the importance of providing concrete evidence to support their claim.