https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48153 Modvat credit on capital goods was not barred under Rule 57-R(5) merely because depreciation had been claimed in the income-tax return; the disqualification arose only if depreciation was actually availed. The High Court read the word "claimed" in the rule as meaning "availed" and accepted that the relevant question was whether the assessee had in fact taken depreciation. As the Tribunal had remanded the matter to verify actual availing of depreciation, that approach was upheld and the Revenue's objection was rejected. en-us Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48153 Modvat credit on capital goods was not barred under Rule 57-R(5) merely because depreciation had been claimed in the income-tax return; the disqualification arose only if depreciation was actually availed. The High Court read the word "claimed" in the rule as meaning "availed" and accepted that the relevant question was whether the assessee had in fact taken depreciation. As the Tribunal had remanded the matter to verify actual availing of depreciation, that approach was upheld and the Revenue's objection was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48153