9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year of the receipt of the capital goods. (b) The appellant also claimed depreciation of the value of the goods under Income-tax Act. (c) The original authority held that when 50% of the credit of duty was taken on capital goods in a particular year, in respect of the balance 50% of the credit, the appellant claiming depreciation from Income- tax on the value of the goods plus 50% of credit yet to be taken, was in order and claiming of such depreciation did not bar them from taking of the balance credit of the 50% in the next year. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) held that Rule 4(4) prohibits the availment of Cenvat credit on which depreciation has been claimed under the Income-tax Act. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of capital goods. It is sufficient to note that the value of capital goods, plant and machinery etc. are given depreciation year by year, ultimately making the value of such capital goods in the books of account as zero and the effect of the same is that the income earned by the company will be proportionally shown less making it available to the reserve funds for replacing the capital goods, plant and machinery etc. This depreciation is not granted in one year i.e. the year of acquisition of the capital goods but over a period of time as prescribed in the Income- tax Act. 6.2 The Cenvat credit is also a benefit made available to the manufacturer of goods to avoid cascading effect of taxes. While in respect of raw materials or input ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value of the capital goods for the purpose of extending the Cenvat credit over the years. In other words, the entire duty paid on capital goods is available as credit in installments spread over the years (normally being taken at the earliest by the assessee 50% in the first year and balance in the very next year). Therefore, on merits, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not warrant interference. 6.5 As regards the extended time-limit, I find that there was no finding on suppression of any relevant fact. In fact, it is a case of difference in interpretation as can be seen from the fact that the original authority agreed with the views of the appellants. Therefore, on limitation, the appeal of the appellant succeeds. 7. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
