2015 (1) TMI 1179 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Disallowance of depreciation - Denial of claimed double benefit of CENVAT Credit as well as depreciation - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the order of the Income-tax Department issued under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which revised the Income-tax returns of the respondent on the ground that they have not claimed double benefit of Cenvat credit as well as depreciation, therefore, the respondents are entitled for Cenvat credit, and rejected the appeal of the Revenue. I also find that the Revenue has not given any reason as to why this order is not correct. Merely saying the impugned order is not correct is not a ground for filing appeal before this Tribunal. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding CENVAT credit on capital goods.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of CENVAT credit on capital goods by the respondent, who had also claimed depreciation on the same goods. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing their appeal. The case revolved around the respondent's procurement of capital goods during 2000-03, claiming both depreciation and CENVAT credit on these goods. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated to deny CENVAT credit, asserting that claiming both benefits was impermissible. However, the respondent rectified the situation by filing revised Income-tax returns under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, disclaiming the depreciation on the capital goods. The Income-tax Department accepted the revised returns, leading the Commissioner (Appeals) to rule in favor of the respondent, stating that since they did not claim double benefits, they were entitled to CENVAT credit.

Upon hearing both parties, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the revised Income-tax assessment, which clarified that the respondent had not availed double benefits. The Revenue failed to provide any substantial grounds to challenge this decision, merely stating that the order was incorrect without further justification. The Tribunal emphasized that a mere assertion of the order being incorrect was insufficient to warrant an appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of substantiating grounds for appeal and highlights the significance of revised assessments in determining entitlement to benefits such as CENVAT credit.