2017 (3) TMI 1497 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that appellant during the period 2004 to 2006 had availed Cenvat Credit on the Capital goods as well as benefit of depreciation u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that - the appellant has though initially claimed depreciation under Income Tax Act as well as benefit of Cenvat Credit on the capital goods for the respective years, but later surrendered the benefit of Income Tax in the year 2006-07. Hence, it cannot be said that they have availed both the benefits - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit and benefit of depreciation under Income Tax Act.
2. Rejection of appeal by Ld Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Submission of evidence by Ld Advocate.
4. Findings and decision of the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat Credit on capital goods and benefit of depreciation under Sec. 32 of the Income Tax Act during the period 2004 to 2006. A demand notice was issued for recovery of wrongly availed credit, interest, and penalty. The Ld Advocate submitted that the appellant rectified the mistake by revising the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2006-07, reducing the claim of depreciation on the same capital goods. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and other documents supported this claim.

2. The Ld Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's appeal, leading to the present appeal. The Ld Advocate argued that all relevant evidence was submitted, but not considered by the Ld Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals).

3. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed surrendered the benefit of Income Tax in the year 2006-07 after initially claiming depreciation and Cenvat Credit on the capital goods for the respective years. The Tribunal noted the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the Assessment order of the Income Tax Dept as supporting evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not avail both benefits simultaneously, contrary to the findings in the impugned order.

4. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had rectified the error by surrendering the depreciation benefit availed earlier, thus justifying the decision in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues, arguments presented, findings, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the legal judgment.