2017 (10) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants have availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods during the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 and also claimed the depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, in the first round of adjudication, the Cenvat Credit was dis-allowed. Being aggrieved by the order-i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shown in the Gross block of the assets but the same was not reduced as expenditure for the reason that there was losses. From the accumulated, depreciation for the year 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 was debited in the depreciation account. Accordingly, the depreciation though claimed during the year 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 stood reversed and the IT return for the year 2005-2006 was revised. The said retu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 and during the same period they claimed the depreciation under the Income Tax. Though IT return of 2005-2006 was revised but during the period when Cenvat Credit was availed the IT return for the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 were not revised. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly denied the Cenvat Credit. In support, he placed reliance on the following jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the relevant period, i.e. 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 has been debited to depreciation account. The result is as if no depreciation was claimed for the entire period, i.e. 2000-2001 to 2004-2005. It is pertinent to note that since during the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, the appellants had been suffering heavy losses, which was much more than the depreciation, the depreciation did not affect the pro....