https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77850 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because depreciation under the Income-tax Act had initially been claimed, where that depreciation claim was later withdrawn by revised return and the revised return was accepted. The accepted factual position showed that the assessee had not finally retained a simultaneous tax benefit on the duty component of the capital goods. The contrary precedent was distinguished on its facts, and the corrected return removed the bar against credit. The result was that the prohibited dual benefit was not established on the facts accepted by the appellate authorities. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77850 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because depreciation under the Income-tax Act had initially been claimed, where that depreciation claim was later withdrawn by revised return and the revised return was accepted. The accepted factual position showed that the assessee had not finally retained a simultaneous tax benefit on the duty component of the capital goods. The contrary precedent was distinguished on its facts, and the corrected return removed the bar against credit. The result was that the prohibited dual benefit was not established on the facts accepted by the appellate authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77850