TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit. 2. The appellant manufactures sugar in its factory at Terna Nagar. In the financial year 1995-96 to 1997-98 it acquired various items of capital goods and in accordance with the provisions of Rules 57Q and T took as Modvat credit the duty paid on these items. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R prohibits taking credit of the duty p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before us, are separate but connected. It is first contended that, although the manufacturer claimed depreciation in the income-tax return that it initially filed included in the value of the capital assets the amount of duty claimed as credit. It filed revised return for each of these three financial years, or "previous years" as they are known in Income Tax Law, in which it excluded the duty ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These, again effectively washed out this claim in the assessment. 5. The Commissioner has not dealt with the last point. The Counsel for the appellant agrees that the second point was not raised before him. The first point the Commissioner dismissed it by saying "there is no provision regarding filing of revised return which would legally allow the assessee to rectify their mistake". 6. We do n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of which claim of credit "has been made and allowed under the Central Excise Rules". This provision appears to us to be a mirror image of sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R on the implication that claim for credit should not only have been made but should have been allowed. The position that claim for depreciation should have been permitted, appears to us to implicit in Rule 5 of Rule 57R. We would ot....