2007 (6) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Credit on capital goods depreciation also claimed on credit amount decision of CESTAT in the case of Anuradha Sugar Mills Ltd .is fully applicable to this case - since after being pointed out, appellants have filed the revised return with the Income-tax Department reducing the claim to the extent of the credit availed on the capital goods, credit so availed is admissible to the appellants - once the credit is admissible, penal action is not sustainable revenue s appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:

1. Availing of Cenvat credit on capital goods and claiming depreciation on the same amount under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal that allowed the respondent to avail Cenvat credit on capital goods and claim depreciation on the same amount under the Income-tax Act. The revenue contended that the respondent was not eligible to avail the credit of the excise duty as they had already claimed depreciation on the same amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a previous case law by the CESTAT, which stated that Modvat credit on capital goods cannot be denied solely because depreciation was initially claimed. The Commissioner found that the respondent revised their income-tax return, reducing the claim by the amount of credit availed on the capital goods, which made the credit admissible. The Commissioner concluded that penal action was not sustainable once the credit was found to be admissible.

The Commissioner's decision was based on the Tribunal's judgment and no contrary decisions were presented by the revenue. The Commissioner's reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Tribunal was crucial in allowing the appeal of the respondent. The Tribunal's previous ruling emphasized that if the depreciation was not claimed in the revised returns, there was no reason to deny the Modvat credit. Therefore, the Commissioner found the appeal to be well-reasoned, following the Tribunal's judgments, and rejected the appeal filed by the revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the credit availed by the respondent was admissible based on the revised income-tax return, which reduced the depreciation claim by the amount of credit on capital goods. The Tribunal found no grounds for interference in the well-reasoned order that followed the Tribunal's previous judgments.