https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257977 Modvat credit on capital goods was not available where the manufacturer had also claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act on the same goods, because Rule 57R(8) barred dual benefit to that extent. Although the assessee had filed declarations undertaking not to claim depreciation, the income-tax return showed depreciation was in fact claimed during the relevant period while Modvat credit was simultaneously taken. The later rectification did not change the position for that period, and the inconsistent declaration supported findings of suppression and misdeclaration. Recovery of the credit, together with interest and penalty, was therefore justified. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257977 Modvat credit on capital goods was not available where the manufacturer had also claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act on the same goods, because Rule 57R(8) barred dual benefit to that extent. Although the assessee had filed declarations undertaking not to claim depreciation, the income-tax return showed depreciation was in fact claimed during the relevant period while Modvat credit was simultaneously taken. The later rectification did not change the position for that period, and the inconsistent declaration supported findings of suppression and misdeclaration. Recovery of the credit, together with interest and penalty, was therefore justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257977