2008 (12) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsultant, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is a Revenue appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated a demand raised on the respondents by the original authority for the Cenvat credit availed on capital goods irregularly. During the year 1995-96, the respondents received certain capital goods and availed credit. In the Income Tax return for the same financial year, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order, the Commissioner found that the respondents had detected the mistake they had committed bona fidely and rectified the same voluntarily. There was no intention on the part of the respondents to evade duty. Therefore, the demand raised invoking larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not sustainable. Accordingly, he vacated the demand and the penalty. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case and the rival submissions. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the respondents had voluntarily withdrawn the claim for depreciation made in their IT returns for the financial year 1995-96 in the revised return filed in May '98. Obviously, the respondents did not intend to derive the benefit also of claiming depreciation on the credit amount availed. The finding that the resp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner should have allowed their appeal also on merits. As the respondents had withdrawn the inadmissible claim for depreciation in the IT return, though not immediately, by such action they absolved themselves of the charge that they had availed the benefit of capital goods credit and claimed depreciation for the same amount simultaneously. I find that the claim by the respondents is also sub....