Just a moment...
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 Cenvat credit on capital goods could be denied merely because depreciation had initially been claimed under the income-tax law, where the claim was later withdrawn in a revised return.
Analysis: The credit mechanism under the excise law and the depreciation claim under the income-tax law cannot be availed simultaneously in respect of the same capital goods. However, where the assessee files a revised return and excludes the excise duty element from the depreciation claim, the statutory bar against double does not survive. The earlier Tribunal view relied upon below treated the purpose of the relevant rule as preventing simultaneous benefit and held that once depreciation is surrendered in the revised return, denial of credit is not justified. On that factual basis, the appellate authority found the credit admissible and also held that penalty could not stand.
Conclusion: The credit was rightly allowed and the denial of credit and penalty were not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed because the assessee had corrected the depreciation claim by revised return, removing the basis for disallowance of the excise credit.
Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat or Modvat credit on capital goods cannot be denied solely because depreciation was initially claimed, if the depreciation claim is subsequently withdrawn or reduced by a revised return so that double benefit is not retained.