2017 (2) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri. G. Natarajan, Advocate for appellant Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants have availed Modvat credit on capital goods during the period 1996-97 to 1999-2000. In the first adjudication order, the Modvat credit was denied on the ground that the appellants had availed double benefits, i.e. they have availe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order-in-original, the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Shri G Natarajan, learned Counsel for the appellants submit that in fact if the first Income Tax return filed for the respective financial years, the appellants though deducted the depreciation but for the purpose of Income Tax, the depreciation was added back. He has taken us to the relevant Income Tax return and the calculation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the show-cause notice is on the allegation that the appellant has availed double benefits, i.e. Modvat credit and the depreciation of the same amount under the Income Tax Act. As per the submission of the learned Counsel and perusal of the Income Tax return and calculation chart of the depreciation, it appears that the appellants have not claimed the depreciation in respect of the amount of Modvat....