2015 (10) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner. Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Per Court : Heard. 2. The petitioner is questioning the order dated 1st May, 2003, passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai (hereinafter referred as "CEGAT", for brevity), whereby the CEGAT has allowed the appeal preferred by the present respondent, wherein the order dated 18-4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by order dated 1-5-2003, whereby the Appellate Tribunal had observed that the respondent had satisfactorily demonstrated that the respondent had not claimed depreciation for Income tax purpose on the Modvat portion of the capital goods for the relevant period. 5. While assailing the above referred order passed by the CEGAT, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General has submitted that as the res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral further submits that though the Rule in express terms does not provide for acceptance of the revised return, the said Rule needs to be read down to the effect that the credit as is sought for should not have been granted by the CEGAT, based upon the revised return and assessment thereof. The perusal of the order impugned discloses that the CEGAT has dealt with the said issue in detail. The CEG....