9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant procured capital goods in the year 1994-95 and in subsequent years and booked as Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) and such capital goods capitalised in the year 2000-01. While capitalising, the Appellant debited an amount of Rs. 1,03,56,202/- towards Cenvat credit and remaining amount was captitalised in gross bock of assets and claimed depreciation thereon. The allegation of the department is that as per statements submitted by the Appellant to the department, an amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,93,737/- stood included in the capital account and depreciation thereon was claimed. As per the Rule 57R(5) during 1994-95 and Rule 57AC(4) during 2000-01 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 credit on capital goods is not allowed in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submission of non claim of depreciation on any cenvat amount, the authorities could call the Appellant and discussed the doubt. However lower authorities did not bother to know the correct position and denied the credit. He referred to the paras 10 and 11 of the impugned order, from which it can be seen that the Ld. Commissioner even after the explanation by the Appellant, did not consider the facts and on her own understanding came to the conclusion that the Appellant has claimed the depreciation on the amount of part of cenvat credit and upheld the denial adjudged by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore the matter needs remand for fresh consideration of the facts. 4. Shri N.N. Prabudesai Ld. Superintendent (AR), appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994-95 upto 2000-01. Firstly the appellants have not given any details in respect of the credit availed as well as the depreciation claimed for the remaining years. Secondly without giving the details of CWIP and capital assets account for the intervening period between 1994-95 and 2000-01 it would be very difficult to confirm that the entries in these accounts were not inclusive of the amount of Cenvat for which credit was availed. The Chartered Accountants certificate produced by the appellants dated 13/7/2006 also does not give any clear cut affirmation regarding the non availment of depreciation on the element of modvat credit availed between 1994-95 and 2000-01. The certificate that "the company has not included value of Rs. 1,03,56,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documentation. A mere reverse entry in the CWIP accounts in 1994-95 cannot help the appellants as without the details of the accounts for the subsequent years until 2000-01, when the depreciation was actually claimed, it cannot be confirmed that in the subsequent years the entry reversing the Cenvat element was not again re-credited. Further the break up of the amount of Rs. 1426.32 lakhs has been given by the appellants themselves and admittedly includes the element of Cenvat credit. It the breakup is not correct, it is for the appellants to give the correct breakup to establish their contention that no depreciation had been claimed by them on the Cenvat element. Having failed to do so the findings of the adjudicating authority have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
