9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants have availed Modvat credit on capital goods during the period 1996-97 to 1999-2000. In the first adjudication order, the Modvat credit was denied on the ground that the appellants had availed double benefits, i.e. they have availed Modvat credit as well as claimed the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal. 2. Shri G Natarajan, learned Counsel for the appellants submit that in fact if the first Income Tax return filed for the respective financial years, the appellants though deducted the depreciation but for the purpose of Income Tax, the depreciation was added back. He has taken us to the relevant Income Tax return and the calculation of chart of depreciation, which is the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has availed double benefits, i.e. Modvat credit and the depreciation of the same amount under the Income Tax Act. As per the submission of the learned Counsel and perusal of the Income Tax return and calculation chart of the depreciation, it appears that the appellants have not claimed the depreciation in respect of the amount of Modvat credit which they have availed. However, this v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants shall be given proper opportunity of personal hearing and making their submissions. The matter being very old of 1996-97 to 1999-2000, the adjudicating authority is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of this order. 7. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority in the above terms. (Pronounced in Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
