Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 914 - AT - Central ExciseMODVAT Credit - capital goods - appellant have neither claimed depreciation on the value representing the MODAT Credit amount under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor claimed it as revenue expenditure as alleged in the Show Cause Notice - willful suppression of facts - extended period of limitation - HELD 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 provisions of the Income Tax Act, against the capital goods namely Ball Bearings, Laminator Dies, Timing Belt etc. during the period April 1994 to March 1998. It is also found that the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate even though placed before the Adjudicating authority, the same has not been considered. Besides, the term ‘revenue expenditure’ has been substituted retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2003. The issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of HONDA SIEL CARS (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2003 (9) TMI 596 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and NAIHATI JUTE MILLS COMPANY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOL. III [2015 (1) TMI 1182 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal - It was held in Naihati Jute Mills Company that Undisputedly, during the relevant period, in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R and/or sub-rule (8) of Rule 57R, the assessee, who avails Modvat credit on capital goods and claim the value of such capital goods as revenue expenditure, then, they were barred from availing the benefits of Modvat credit on the capital goods. I also find that this position has been changed retrospectively by virtue of Section 149 of the Finance Act, 2003. In view of the above retrospective amendment, I do not find any merit in the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside - Appeal allowed.
|