9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absorbed depreciation - Since there was no profit in the books of accounts of the appellant during the relevant period, the appellant did not avail double benefit i.e., Cenvat Credit as well as benefit of IT - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1487/07, E/CO/27/08 - A/89591-89592/17/EB - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-2001 to 2004-2005 were not revised. Accordingly, the Cenvat Credit was dis-allowed. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 2. Shri Sunil Navangar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the appellant had claimed the depreciation during the year 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 but the same was stood unabsorbed till 2006 for the reason that all these years, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellant had suffered huge loss during all these periods. He placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd - 2008 (224) ELT 391 (Bom) b) Nish Fibres - 2010 (257) EL T 81 (Guj) 3. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. He further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that in the earlier round, this Tribunal has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for considering the revised return. We have observed that though all the returns for the period 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 were not revised but the IT return for the year 2005-2006 was admittedly revised and the same was accepted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant period, the appellant did not avail double benefit i.e., Cenvat Credit as well as benefit of IT. The judgements relied upon by the Ld. Counsel support their case. As regards to the judgements relied upon by the Ld. AR, the facts of those are different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio of those judgements is not applicable. As per our above discussion, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
