TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order]. - This appeal is arisen out of the order-in-appeal dated 31-7-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune, by which he has upheld the order dated 25-2-2008 of the Assistant Commissioner disallwing the credit of Rs. 86,400/- and ordering recovery of interest and imposing equivalent penalty of Rs. 86,400/-. 2. This is the second round of litigation. The issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty, the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before me. 5. The main contention of the appellant is that the appellant has not availed the depreciation on the impugned goods and the appellant has claimed the impugned goods as revenue expenditure, which was allowed by an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which has been re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the credit availed by them correct, legal and proper. 7. Heard. 8. I have examined the record placed before me and found that the CIT (Appeals) in Para 6 of his order has allowed the depreciation on capital assets, which are appearing at pages 115 and 116 of the appeal paper book and the impugned goods is nowhere mentioned in that list. Further more, the impugned goods with asse....