2012 (12) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Denial of credit in respect of the capital goods - Depreciation claimed under the Income Tax Act - Held That - As Documents were not available to the original authority and that authority was therefore handicapped in taking a decision on the dispute. Appellate Authority did not properly examine the documents produced by the assessee - The matter was remanded back to the original authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver and stay in respect of duty and penalty
2. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods for the period from September 2003 to May 2005
3. Claim of depreciation from the value of capital goods before the Income Tax authority
4. Examination of crucial documents by the original and appellate authorities
5. Remand of the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration

Analysis:

1. The application sought waiver and stay concerning duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 7,31,078/- each. The Tribunal decided that the appeal needed final disposal without pre-deposit. The appeal challenged a duty demand due to the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods from September 2003 to May 2005. The denial was based on the claim of depreciation under the Income Tax Act for the Financial Year 2004-05. The appellant contended that the amount in question was reduced from the value of capital goods while filing the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2006-07. Relevant documents supporting this claim were presented, which were not examined by the original authority. The Tribunal heard both sides, including the Additional Commissioner (AR).

2. The central issue was whether the assessee had claimed depreciation from the value of the capital goods before the Income Tax authority. The documents provided by the appellant indicated that they had indeed reduced an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit from the opening balance of plant and machinery before filing the Income Tax Return. These crucial documents were not available to the original authority, rendering them unable to make an informed decision. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority also did not properly examine these documents. Consequently, the matter was deemed to require remand to the original authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the original authority to reevaluate all issues after allowing the assessee a fair chance to present evidence and be heard personally, emphasizing the need for a detailed and comprehensive order.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the stay application and pronounced the decision in open court, highlighting the need for a thorough reconsideration of the issues by the original authority with proper examination of all relevant documents and evidence.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision and the legal reasoning behind it.