https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377573 Cenvat credit on capital goods was held inadmissible where depreciation had also been claimed on the duty component in income tax returns, because Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 bars simultaneous benefit on the same element. A revised income tax return did not cure the original ineligibility, so the wrong availment remained established. Interest was not sustainable once the credit demand itself had been dropped and no recoverable amount survived. Penalty for wrongful availment of credit was sustained because the contravention of the Cenvat scheme was treated as substantive, justifying action under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC. en-us Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 07:49:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377573 Cenvat credit on capital goods was held inadmissible where depreciation had also been claimed on the duty component in income tax returns, because Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 bars simultaneous benefit on the same element. A revised income tax return did not cure the original ineligibility, so the wrong availment remained established. Interest was not sustainable once the credit demand itself had been dropped and no recoverable amount survived. Penalty for wrongful availment of credit was sustained because the contravention of the Cenvat scheme was treated as substantive, justifying action under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377573