2005 (7) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 83,489/-, on capital goods during the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, after filing declarations under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, wherein they had declared that they would not claim depreciation on the value of the goods under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. But, on verification of records, it appeared to the Central Excise authorities that the appellants had claimed depreciation u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t they had withdrawn the depreciation claim under the Income-tax Act and accordingly the IT assessing authority revised the assessments for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Ld. Consultant filed copies of these revised assessment orders. In the circumstances, Consultant contended, it could not be held that the appellants had availed the abov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Year Depreciation 1995-96 Rs. 11,112/- 1996-97 Rs. 18,209/- 1997-98 Rs. 13,542/- Total Rs. 42,863/- There is no evidence, on record, of withdrawal of depreciation claim as regards the amount of Rs. 83,489 - Rs. 42,863 = Rs. 40,626/-. Hence it has to be held that capital goods credit to the extent of Rs. 40,626/- has been irregularly taken. However, the question wheth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration by the appellants under Rule 57T is crystal clear. They had declared that they would not be claiming depreciation of value equivalent to Modvat credit on the capital goods under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. But they did not honour this declaration. They took Modvat credit on the capital goods and, at the same time, claimed depreciation in the IT returns filed before the IT authorities.....