2020 (2) TMI 687 - HC - Central Excise

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - benefit of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT - According to the learned counsel, during the pendency of the present tax appeal, his client is not able to avail the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. In such circumstances, we permit the learned counsel to withdraw this tax appeal. This tax appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed without expressing any opinion on the three substantial questions of law, which have been formulated in the present appeal.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to credit of duty paid on capital goods after corrective action
- Appellate Tribunal's decision on claimed depreciation
- Examination of appellants' contention based on earlier order

Entitlement to credit of duty paid on capital goods after corrective action:
The tax appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was admitted on three substantial questions of law. The first issue was whether the appellants are entitled to the credit of the duty paid on the capital goods after taking corrective action in the year in which the credit was taken. The order dated 05/11/2009 highlighted this issue. The learned counsel for the appellant made a statement that the client wants to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme, 2019, as during the pendency of the appeal, they were unable to benefit from the scheme. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal with the option to revive it if the appellant couldn't avail the scheme.

Appellate Tribunal's decision on claimed depreciation:
The second issue revolved around whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appellants had claimed depreciation even though it was allowed for the limited purpose of carrying forward. The Tribunal's decision was questioned, and the learned counsel for the Revenue mentioned that they had already preferred another Tax Appeal. The appellant's counsel stated that an amount had been deposited based on the Tribunal's order. The court disposed of the appeal as not pressed without expressing any opinion on the substantial questions of law raised.

Examination of appellants' contention based on earlier order:
The third issue pertained to whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in not examining the contention of the appellants who believed, based on an earlier order, that corrective actions allowed them to take credit even when depreciation was claimed in earlier years. The court did not delve into this issue as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant to benefit from the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The option to revive the appeal was kept open if the appellant couldn't avail the scheme.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the withdrawal of the tax appeal to benefit from a dispute resolution scheme, without expressing any opinion on the substantial legal questions raised during the proceedings. The court allowed for the appeal to be revived if the appellant couldn't avail the scheme, maintaining the option for further legal recourse if necessary.