9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er]. - This is a Revenue appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated a demand raised on the respondents by the original authority for the Cenvat credit availed on capital goods irregularly. During the year 1995-96, the respondents received certain capital goods and availed credit. In the Income Tax return for the same financial year, they claimed depreciation on the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents had detected the mistake they had committed bona fidely and rectified the same voluntarily. There was no intention on the part of the respondents to evade duty. Therefore, the demand raised invoking larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not sustainable. Accordingly, he vacated the demand and the penalty. 2. The appeal of the Revenue is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case, there is no dispute that the respondents had voluntarily withdrawn the claim for depreciation made in their IT returns for the financial year 1995-96 in the revised return filed in May '98. Obviously, the respondents did not intend to derive the benefit also of claiming depreciation on the credit amount availed. The finding that the respondents did not have such intention contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso on merits. As the respondents had withdrawn the inadmissible claim for depreciation in the IT return, though not immediately, by such action they absolved themselves of the charge that they had availed the benefit of capital goods credit and claimed depreciation for the same amount simultaneously. I find that the claim by the respondents is also substantiated by the decision of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
