9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short 'the Tribunal'), has been arrayed as respondent No.1, to the present proceedings. 1.1. In our opinion, the Tribunal/respondent No.1, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, to the present proceedings. 1.2. Accordingly, the Tribunal/respondent No.1, is deleted from the array of parties. 1.3. The appellant will file an amended memo of parties. 2. Issue notice. Ms.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the Revenue, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 (now, the sole respondent). 3. By virtue of this appeal, challenge is laid to the order dated 07.10.2016. Since, the order is cryptic, the same is extracted hereafter : "Appellant has failed to submit the income tax assessment order to substantiate that the depreciati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled of to the tune of Rs. 30,09,266/-. 5. The appellant avers that, upon discovery of the error committed by it, in the return filed for AY 2009-2010 (PY 2008-2009), the element of duty was reduced from the value of the subject capital goods. According to the appellant, this methodology was evolved, as, at that point in time revised returns could not have been filed for AY 2006-2007 and AY 2007-2008. 5.1. Furthermore, the appellant avers that in the reply filed to the SCN, it was indicated that it had, as a matter of fact, added a sum of Rs. 42,82,653/- to the value of the subject capital goods, as against an amount of Rs. 30,09,266/-. 5.2. In sum, the stand of the appellant was that the error committed was corrected and the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2016, is stayed. 7.2. The respondent, will file their reply, before the next date of hearing. 8. Re-notify the matter on 10.04.2017, for final disposal." 2. The issue, which arises for consideration was, broadly, articulated, as is evident from the extract above, in the proceeding held on 05.04.2017. 3. The impugned order would show that the Tribunal rejected the appeal on the sole ground that no evidence had been placed before it by the appellant/assessee to substantiate its stand that depreciation claimed on capital goods contrary to Rule 4(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, had been reversed. 4.Both the counsels are agreed that, since, the assessment was made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in so far as this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
