TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V.K. Kaushik, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) ORDER PER : RAMESH NAIR The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR/206/Th.II/2006 dt. 07.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and the Order-in-Original bearing No. 02/05-06 dt. 31.05.2005 was upheld. 2. The fact of the present case is that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt is before us. 3. Shri N.S.Patel, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant availed 50% Cenvat Credit in the financial year 2001-2002 and availed the depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the balance 50% of the Cenvat Credit which was not taken in that respective financial year, but was taken in the following financial year. He submits that while taking th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of C. Ex. Vadpdara-I-2010 (262) ELT 753 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. On the other hand Shri V.K. Kaushik, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that it is admitted fact that the appellant in respect of remaining 50% of Cenvat Credit had availed simultaneously the depreciation under Income Tax Act, 1961. In terms of Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that the Cenvat Credit in respect of the duty on which depreciation was claimed, is not admissible. The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order given the following finding: "I have carefully gone through the memorandum of appeal, the relevant provisions and considered the oral and written submissions made by the appellants. It is not in dispute that the appellants had availed cenvat credit an....