TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d nine) and ordered recovery of the same under Rule 57U (3) of the CE Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the CE Act, 1944. He has also ordered appropriation of the equivalent amount towards the above duty liability as he has noted that the assessee has already debited the amount vide PLA RG23A Part II and RG23 C Part II. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) under Rule 173Q of the Rules ibid read with Section 38A of the CE Act, 1944, apart from another penalty of Rs. 19,09,367 under Rules 57U(6) and 173Q of the Rules ibid read with Section 38A of the Act ibid. He has also ordered recovery of appropriate interest on the said credit of Rs. 19,09,367 which has been availed after introduction of Rule 57U(3), in terms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant appeared for the appellants that the allegation is that the appellants have availed double benefits viz. depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax and Modvat Credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q. He has invited our attention to the synopsis submitted by the appellants in the Court on 3.11.2004. It is stated therein that correct depreciation was allowed by the Income Tax Department on the value of fixed assets after subtracting the modvat credit amount in the revised assessment order dated 27/31 January 2000 and this factual position has been accepted and confirmed by the Commissioner in para 15 of the impugned order. The relevant portion reads as under: "Revised computation of total income was filed by M/s LMW rectifyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 2002 (141) ELT 172 (Tri.Bang), Terna Shetkari SSK Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2003 (159) ELT 777 (Tri.-Mumbai), Meridian Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, passed by the South Zonal Bench vide Final Order No. 22/2003 dated 21,1.2003, GTV Spinners Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 2002 (150) ELT 297 (Tri.-Chennai), TNSCP Spinning Mills v. CCE, Chennai, 2002 (82) ECC 83 (T): 2002 (150) ELT 715 (Tri.Chennai), in support of his contention that Modvat Credit on capital goods cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that depreciation was claimed on total value under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. He submitted that out of the demand of a sum of Rs. 1,62,69,109 which was disallowed as inadmissible Modvat Credit, the appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rve that in the present case, as seen from the Assessment order dated 27.1.2000/31.1.2000, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, on the request made by the appellants to revise the assessment for the reason that there was a mistake on their part in deducting the Modvat Credit from the value of the stock of tools instead of from the cost of asset included in the block of assets, in the earlier returns submitted, the Income Tax Department after due verification of the facts, revised the assessment. The Order-in-Original in fairness has noted this factual position, vide para 15 (viii), page 26, by observing that: "Revised computation of total income was filed by M/s. LMW rectifying th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entical situation, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Terna Sehetkara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2001 (138) ELT 1225 has held that discarding of appellants' plea that amount of Modvated duty subsequently excluded in the revised return, on ground that filing of revised income tax return not permissible, is against specific provisions of Section 139(5) of IT Act. It was also held therein that Modvat Credit on capital goods cannot be denied merely on ground that the assessee made claim for depreciation. We, further find that this Bench of the Tribunal also took similar view in the case of KV Mills v. CCE, Coimbatore, 2002 (149) ELT 796 wherein the Tribunal followed the ratio of the ruling of the West Reg....