9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounting treatment, they have rectified the lapse - the CA certificate certifying that the appellants have not availed double benefit of depreciation as well as CENVAT credit was not produced before the authorities below - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to verify from the records produced by the appellant as to whether they have reversed the depreciation by following the account treatment as submitted by them - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/2213/2010-SM - 21520/2016 - Dated:- 19-12-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Karthikeyan, Advocate For the appellant Shri Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the plant and machinery account, an amount of ₹ 4,53,696/- being the CENVAT credit taken of the basic custom duty and education cess paid on the capital goods. In this factual background, the appellants were issued a show-cause notice dated 20.7.2007 proposing to demand an amount of ₹ 4,53,696/- being the CENVAT credit of duty paid on capital goods along with interest. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 14.2.2008 confirmed the demand and aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who upheld the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1 He further submitted that it has been consistently held in all the cases cited above that the provisions of Rule 4(4) of CCR has been enacted to ensure that no double benefit is availed and in the absence of double benefit, the said Rule is not attracted. He also submitted that the appellant in this case have not simultaneously taken the benefit of depreciation and CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the capital goods inasmuch as the accounting treatment followed by them washes out the depreciation claimed under the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that the appellant debited the plant and machinery account with an amount equal to excise duty of ₹ 4,53,696/- in the financial year 2004-05 and thereafter reduced an amount of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot revised their income tax return for the year 2004-05 but they have deducted a portion of the duty amount from the assessable value during the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 while making depreciation. Further, in order to prove that the appellants have not availed double benefit of deprecation under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the CENVAT credit under CCR on plant and machinery purchased by them, has produced certificate of the Chartered Accountant (CA) who has certified after examining the books of accounts, documents and statements pertaining to the appellants for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, that the appellants have not availed double benefit of depreciation as well as CENVAT credit. The CA certificate was not produced befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
