2013 (12) TMI 810 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit availed on capital goods Also depreciation claimed for the same capital goods - Assessee contended that the depreciation claimed has been sought to be reversed by filing revised returns thus cenvat credit was rightly taken Held that - The documents were not placed before the lower authorities - the case laws relied upon by the appellant was not brought to the notice of first appellate authority as some of them are published after the order in appeal dated 23.05.2007 passed by first appellate authority - appellant has not made evident that the revised income tax returns filed by them have been accepted by the Income Tax department for the relevant Assessment Year - As these facts and legal pronouncements were not considered by the original adjudicating authority it will be in fitness of deliverance of justice that the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority - Appellant shall address all the evidences before the adjudicating authority in support their claim order set aside matter remanded back to the original adjudicatory authority for deciding the case afresh.

Issues Involved:
1. Availment of cenvat credit on capital goods and claiming depreciation in Income Tax returns.
2. Time bar contention regarding the demand.
3. Admissibility of cenvat credit based on revised Income Tax returns.
4. Consideration of case laws and documents not presented before lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of cenvat credit and claiming depreciation:
The appellant, M/s. Indo German Tool Room, availed cenvat credit on capital goods during specific years and also claimed depreciation on the same goods in their Income Tax returns, which was deemed impermissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The primary argument raised by the appellant was on the grounds of time bar. The case involved a deposit made by the appellant due to a Stay order, indicating a contentious issue regarding the penalty amount reduction.

Issue 2: Time bar contention:
Both the appellant and the Revenue contested the demand on the basis of being time-barred. The appellant raised this issue in their cross-objection, emphasizing the limitation period for the demand. The argument regarding the time bar was crucial in determining the validity and enforceability of the demand made.

Issue 3: Admissibility of cenvat credit based on revised Income Tax returns:
The appellant presented a defense stating that they had not claimed depreciation in their revised Income Tax returns for specific assessment years, making a case for the admissibility of cenvat credit. The appellant relied on various case laws to support their claim, asserting that once revised Income Tax returns are accepted by the authorities, cenvat credit becomes permissible. However, the Revenue opposed this argument, highlighting that these facts were not brought to the attention of the adjudicating authorities.

Issue 4: Consideration of case laws and documents:
During the proceedings, the appellant cited several case laws to support their position. However, it was noted that these legal pronouncements were not presented before the lower authorities. The Tribunal observed that the case laws relied upon were published post the initial order by the first appellate authority, raising concerns about their applicability. The Tribunal concluded that the case should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for all evidence to be presented and considered during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a comprehensive reevaluation of all issues in de-novo proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing all evidence and legal arguments before the adjudicating authority to ensure a just outcome. Both the appeal by the appellant and the cross-objection, along with the appeal by the Revenue, were disposed of with the directive for a fresh decision in the remand proceedings.

← Previous Next →