2014 (11) TMI 865 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Clearance of goods to sister concern - evenue contended that assessee have calculated depreciated value applying depreciation at the rate of 25% as provided under the Income Tax Act and have therefore paid less amount of duty than they would have paid. - as per the department the depreciated value of the goods were required to be done in accordance with Board s Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 - Held that - In the show cause notice dated 16-7-2003, it has been specifically mentioned that as per Circular issued in the year 2002, the appellant/assessee is liable to pay the tax mentioned therein. But as rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/assessee, the Tribunal has not considered the said Circular whereas the Tribunal has remitted the matter to its original authority and also given necessary direction to apply the Circular issued in the year 1988. Further the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai has not at all considered the relevant provisions of law. - Tribunal to decide the matter afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of law for availing depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for removal of used capital goods.
2. Application of straight-line depreciation method for capital goods removed during a specific period.
3. Retrograde nature of the tribunal's order in rejecting the application of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Allegation of violation of natural justice principles by the tribunal.
5. Applicability of revenue-neutral principles in the case.

Interpretation of Law for Depreciation:
The appellant engaged in cotton yarn production and transferred capital goods to a sister concern, leading to a demand for central excise duty. The tribunal remanded the matter to apply a straight-line depreciation method from a 1988 circular. The appellant raised questions on law application under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Cenvat Credit Rules, and the tribunal's failure to consider relevant rules and decisions. The appellant argued for setting aside the remand order.

Straight-Line Depreciation Method:
The central issue was whether central excise duty should apply based on the straight-line or return down value method under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice cited a 2002 circular, but the tribunal directed the use of a 1988 circular without considering the 2002 circular or relevant law provisions. The appellant's contention that the tribunal's order was unsustainable due to lack of consideration of the law was upheld.

Retrograde Nature of Tribunal's Order:
The appellant questioned the tribunal's rejection of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for depreciation on used capital goods. The tribunal's failure to consider the 2002 circular and relevant law provisions was deemed a flaw, leading to the setting aside of the remand order in favor of the appellant.

Violation of Natural Justice Principles:
Allegations were made against the tribunal for violating natural justice principles by referencing a 1998 circular and in terms of penalty imposition. The tribunal's failure to consider relevant law provisions and circulars was highlighted, supporting the appellant's argument for setting aside the remand order.

Applicability of Revenue-Neutral Principles:
The question of revenue neutrality was raised concerning the absence of revenue loss in the case. The respondent argued that the tribunal's remand order based on a 1988 circular was beneficial to the assessee. However, the tribunal's failure to consider the relevant law and circulars led to the setting aside of the remand order in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the remand order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The tribunal was directed to reconsider the issue in question based on the relevant circular and provisions of law, emphasizing the importance of proper legal interpretation and adherence to principles of natural justice in such matters.