9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l excise officers found that during the period 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 the appellant availed MODVAT credit on the capital goods and filed declaration under Rule 57T of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was found that they have claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax, 1962 in respect of the value of the capital goods. A show-cause notice dated 2.11.2009 was issued proposing disallowance of the MODVAT credit of Rs.15,42,556.69 along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority disallowed the MODVAT credit and demanded duty of Rs.15,42,556.69 and also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order insofar as penalty was reduced to Rs.4,05,294/-. 2. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Honda Siel Cars (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE -2004 (163) ELT 344. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that credit was denied in respect of six items, out of that five machines are related to the depreciation and the other one is with regard to revenue expenditure. It is submitted that the books of accounts produced by the appellant would show clearly that they have claimed depreciation as well as revenue expenditure which they have not clarified at any point of time. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by certificate No.K.10/2002-03 and GIR K.10/2002-03 both da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax has given a certificate in respect of the Assessment Year 1995-96, 1996-97 as mentioned above. Rule 57T provides that the assessee shall not claim deprecation under Section 32 of the Income Tax, 1961. In the present case, we find that the Income Tax authority had certified that the appellant had not claimed depreciation which would prevail against any other document, unless its genuinity is doubted. So the demand on this account is not justified. 6. Regarding the demand of Rs.57,177/- the appellant contended that they have not shown as revenue expenditure in respect of the MODVAT credit. It is seen that on this issue the Tribunal in the case of Honda Siel Cars (supra) held as under:- &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
