9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant received duty paid materials such as Ball Bearings, Laminator Dies, Timing Belt etc. falling under CTH 848200, 820700 and 401090 respectively. These goods were used as spare parts/consumables of the machinery. While accounting for such purchase, the cost of these spare parts/consumables was debited as revenue expenditure exclusive of duty of excise. Excise duty paid by the Appellant was recorded as MODVAT Cedit receivable in the books of account. During the period from April 1994 to March 1998, the Appellant availed MODVAT Credit on various capital goods and they have neither claimed depreciation on the value representing the MODAT Credit amount under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this regard is placed on the following judgements:- Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Limited [2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC)] Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gas Authority of India Ltd. [2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC)] Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC)] Excise Appeal No.125 of 2011 Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. [2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC)] 4. It is submitted that none of the provisions quoted in the Show Cause Notice i.e., 57Q, 57R, 57S and 57T mandate that the capital goods have to be booked only as capital expenditure in the books of account of an assessee. The only bar contemplated is that if an assessee claims depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, demand cannot be confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation on bare allegation of willful suppression of facts. It is further submitted that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the Appellant was under bona fide belief that the credit has been rightly availed. 6. The Ld.Authorized Representative for the Department did not dispute the retrospective amendment and also the Certificate of Chartered Accountant produced by the Appellant. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We find that in the Chartered Accountant's Certificate it is clearly mentioned that the Appellant had neither claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor as revenue expenditure under any other pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appeal is allowed." Naihati Jute Mills Company Ltd. "2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has submitted that the issue relates to availment of Modvat credit during the period from August, 1995 to February, 1997 on various capital goods. He submits that they have availed Modvat credit on the said capital goods in accordance with the law and under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that the Department has proposed to deny the Modvat credit on such capital goods on the ground that in view of the sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R, the value being shown as revenue expenditure in their books of account, therefore, they would not be eligible for Modvat credit on such capital goods. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
