TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to ₹ 44,28,762/- and ₹ 5,04,995/- u/r 4(4) of CCR, 2004? - Held that: - an assessee is debarred to claim the depreciation of the value representing the credit availed on the capital goods as well as depreciation on the said value under the Income Tax Act - It is not indispute that the appellant’s products soon after became exempted, they have reversed credit of ₹ 51,93, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely, Computer Systems/Sets falling under Chapter 84 of the CETA, 1985. The said products became exempted from duty between 09.07.2004 to 01.03.2006. During the course of CERA audit, it was found that the appellant in their respective balance sheets for the financial years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsustainable in law, as the goods involved in present case are inputs . He submits that the said provision is directed against the claim of double benefit, that is, CENVAT credit on the capital goods and also depreciation on the same capital goods under Income Tax Act. It is his contention that the Circular Bearing No. 783/16/2004-CX dt. 28.08.2004, which was the basis for the audit objection, al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 5,04,995/- under Rule 4(4) of CCR, 2004. The said rule 4(4) of CCR, 2004 reads as follows:- The CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods shall not be allowed in respect of that part if the value of capital goods which represents the amount of duty on such capital goods, which the manufacturer of provider of output service claims as depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
