TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows Cenvat credit and depreciation on capital goods under Income-tax Act.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus Bajaj Auto Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus Bajaj Auto Ltd. - [2008] 13 STT 62 (MUM. - CESTAT) Issues:1. Availing of Cenvat credit on capital goods and claiming depreciation on the same amount under the Income-tax Act.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal that allowed the respondent to avail Cenvat credit on capital goods and claim depreciation on the same amount under the Income-tax Act. The revenue contended that the respondent was not eligible to avail the credit of the excise duty as they had already claimed depreciation on the same amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a previous case law by the CESTAT, which stated that Modvat credit on capital goods cannot be denied solely because depreciation was initially claimed. The Commissioner found that the respondent revised their income-tax return, reducing the claim by the amount of credit availed on the capital goods, which made the credit admissible. The Commissioner concluded that penal action was not sustainable once the credit was found to be admissible.The Commissioner's decision was based on the Tribunal's judgment and no contrary decisions were presented by the revenue. The Commissioner's reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Tribunal was crucial in allowing the appeal of the respondent. The Tribunal's previous ruling emphasized that if the depreciation was not claimed in the revised returns, there was no reason to deny the Modvat credit. Therefore, the Commissioner found the appeal to be well-reasoned, following the Tribunal's judgments, and rejected the appeal filed by the revenue.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the credit availed by the respondent was admissible based on the revised income-tax return, which reduced the depreciation claim by the amount of credit on capital goods. The Tribunal found no grounds for interference in the well-reasoned order that followed the Tribunal's previous judgments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
