https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52147 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because income-tax depreciation had been claimed elsewhere; denial is justified only when depreciation is actually claimed and allowed on the same excise duty element, creating a double benefit. The assessee produced revised income-tax returns, depreciation statements, and certificates from the jurisdictional income-tax authority showing that depreciation was claimed only after excluding the Modvat portion, and one assessment order had attained finality. On that material, the possibility of pending assessment proceedings did not support an inference that depreciation covered the disputed duty amount. The assessee was therefore not disentitled to Modvat credit. en-us Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:13:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52147 Modvat credit on capital goods could not be denied merely because income-tax depreciation had been claimed elsewhere; denial is justified only when depreciation is actually claimed and allowed on the same excise duty element, creating a double benefit. The assessee produced revised income-tax returns, depreciation statements, and certificates from the jurisdictional income-tax authority showing that depreciation was claimed only after excluding the Modvat portion, and one assessment order had attained finality. On that material, the possibility of pending assessment proceedings did not support an inference that depreciation covered the disputed duty amount. The assessee was therefore not disentitled to Modvat credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52147