TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin time limit set by the Income Tax Law - Held that: - The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat-II Vs. Nish Fibres [2009 (12) TMI 415 - Gujarat HIGH COURT] where the claim regarding depreciation withdrawn by filing revised return and such revised return accepted. Credit not deniable. Since the assessee have adjusted the amount of Cenvat Credit in their depreciation account, I do not intend to demand the amount of ₹ 1,70,820,/- once again . Once the demand proposed in show cause notice has been dropped, there is no question of interest or imposition of penalty under 11 AC equivalent to the demanded amount. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not ordered the recovery of amount under the show cause notice in question as the same has already been adjusted in the books of depreciation by the applicants. It is also seen that the appellant had filed the revised return with the Income Tax authorities for the F.Y. 2007-08 and not claimed depreciation in the revised return. Revised return was filed within time limit set by the Income Tax Law. I find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat-II Vs. Nish Fibres (supra) where it was held as below: 10. The moot question for our consideration is as to whether the respondent-assessee has, in fact, claimed the depreciation and whether such claim has been allowed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the view in that case that the facts and circumstances are substantially different from those of Alcobex Metals Ltd. (supra) 12. It is important to note here that, in the case of C.C.E Coimbatore V. Veejay Lakshmi engineering Works Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has, in terms, held that as the Respondent assessee had withdrawn the inadmissible claim for depreciation in the I.T. return, though not immediately, by such action they absolved of the charge that they had availed the benefit of capital goods credit and claimed depreciation for the same amount simultaneously. The case of M/s. Narayan Krishna Spinners ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore (supra) was relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal has however held that the fact of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
