2018 (11) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of CENVAT Credit availed - Rule 14 of the CCR 2004 - Appellant availed dual benefit i.e., CENVAT Credit of Excise Duty paid on the capital goods as well as depreciation on the Excise Duty paid on the capital goods under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that - The judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.L. Lumax Ltd. 2016 (5) TMI 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT prevails, being a binding one, where it was held that The calculation of depreciation in so far as it relates to the duty component on which Modvat Credit had already been claimed, is certainly a tedious process. It does not mean that the appellant can have the licence to commit a mistake. However, since neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has given any finding on the acceptance or otherwise by the Income Tax authorities of the revised return claimed to have been filed by the appellant, a factual finding is required to be given. Matter is remanded back to the file of the adjudicating authority, the assessee-appellant directed to furnish revised return as well as income tax assessment Order based on its revised return to the satisfaction of the lower authority and the lower authority shall pass a fresh Order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Alleged dual benefit availed by appellant in CENVAT Credit and depreciation on Excise Duty paid on capital goods. Confirmation of proposals in Order-in-Original leading to demand of duty, interest, and penalty. Appeal against Order-in-Original. Claim of a bona fide mistake in claiming depreciation. Dispute regarding voluntary act in withdrawing claim of depreciation. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Consideration of High Court judgments on availment of CENVAT Credit and depreciation under Income Tax Act. Conflict between different decisions on the issue. Requirement of factual finding on acceptance of revised return by Income Tax authorities.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the alleged dual benefit availed by the appellant concerning CENVAT Credit and depreciation on Excise Duty paid on capital goods. The Audit Officers raised concerns during the audit, prompting the issuance of a Show Cause Notice seeking recovery under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Order-in-Original confirmed the proposals, leading to the appellant's unsuccessful appeal before the Commissioner, and subsequently, the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the claiming of depreciation was a bona fide mistake, and a revised income tax return was filed immediately upon detection of the error. The Income Tax authorities accepted the revised return, although it was not considered by the Commissioner in the impugned Order. The respondent's representative contended that the appellant's action was not voluntary and violated CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The judgment extensively discusses relevant High Court decisions on similar issues, emphasizing the importance of not permitting double benefits and the consequences of rectifying mistakes post-detection. The judgment also highlights conflicting decisions from different benches of the CESTAT, underscoring the need for a factual finding on the acceptance of the revised return by the Income Tax authorities.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to furnish the revised return and income tax assessment Order for consideration. The judgment stressed the applicability of the High Court's decision if the depreciation claim was withdrawn and accepted by the Income Tax Officer, partially allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.