Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 511 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
- Calculation of depreciation for a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) unit that opted out of the EOU scheme.
- Interpretation of the notifications regarding the calculation of depreciation for capital goods.
- Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 14/2004-Cust dated 13.02.2004 in determining depreciation.
- Validity of the demand for Central Excise duty and Customs duty along with penalty.

The judgment revolves around an appeal filed by M/s Skipperseil Limited (Unit-II) against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, confirming a demand of Rs. 84,255/- and an equal penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing transformers, opted out of the EOU scheme and converted its unit into an ordinary unit. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of depreciation for capital goods after debonding. The notifications specified the rate of depreciation and allowed depreciation for the entire quarter. The appellant contended that the depreciation should be computed for the full quarter, relying on case laws and challenging the reliance on CBEC Circular No. 14/2004-Cust. The lower authorities misinterpreted the circular, leading to the demand for Central Excise duty and Customs duty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal analyzed the notifications specifying the method of calculating depreciation for capital goods of a debonded EOU unit. The explanations in the notifications clearly stated that depreciation for any part of a quarter should be computed considering the full quarter. The impugned order relied on CBEC Circular No. 14/2004-Cust to restrict depreciation to part of the quarter, which was a misinterpretation. The circular did not address the treatment of a part of the quarter for depreciation calculation. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular, being an administrative order, cannot override the notifications. Since the notifications allowed depreciation for the entire quarter, the circular could not limit it to part of the quarter. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand for Central Excise duty and Customs duty, along with the penalty, was not sustainable. The misinterpretation of the notifications and reliance on the circular led to an incorrect calculation of depreciation. By clarifying that depreciation should be computed for the full quarter as per the notifications, the Tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellant by setting aside the impugned order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates