TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this is not correct. It is his submission that the assessment order makes it very clear that claim for depreciation is considered and allowed not for the purpose of allowing but for computing income of the appellants for the purpose of carry forward. He submits that without quantifying the amount of depreciation it was not possible to permit carry forward. He also submits that income has to be computed as per the provisions contained in Section 30 to Section 43(d) of Income-tax and Section 32 allows the deduction on account of depreciation. He submits that only when depreciation claim is allowed and deducted from the income of the assessee so as to pay less tax on the income to the extent of depreciation claimed, it can be said that appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or profit to cover the depreciation, the depreciation is allowed to be carried forward. This does not mean that the depreciation is worked out only for computation purpose and not for calculation of income. This is brought out more clearly by the assessment order for the next year wherein the depreciation has been worked out and allowed and previous years depreciation has been added. The Central Excise Law requires the appellants not to claim any depreciation at all and in the normal course if the appellants were to make profit in the year 1998-99, the depreciation which was carried forward would have been adjusted against income and in such a situation, the assessment order would have been finalized and appellants would not be in any posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here were 3 show cause notice in total having been raised on 4-5-2000, were no longer available for initiation of proceedings. Reliance stands placed by him on the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Sunrise Structurals v. Engg. Limited vide its order No. A/711 to 722/WAB/2004/C-II dated 27-8-04. On the other hand, the department s case is that the issue stands decided by the Larger Bench s decision of the Tribunal in case of Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Limited as reported in - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 370. Further, the provisions of Section 38A were amended with retrospective effect and as such the Revenue is entitled to initiate proceedings under the erstwhile modvat provisions. We find that this issue was not raised before the authorities be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
