TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. Penalty - Held that: - the appellant had paid up the entire amount demanded before the adjudication proceedings. It should also be kept in mind that the matter is one related to interpretation on the quantum on which Income tax depreciation should not be claimed - penalty cannot be sustained and is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/1094/2005 - Final Order No. 42234/2017 - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Rabeen Jayaram, Advocate for the appellants Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue in appeal concerns alleged simultaneous availment of depreciation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said amount along with interest liability thereof and imposing penalties under various provisions of law. Aggrieved, appellants are once again before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate, Shri Rabeen Jayaram, submitted that they have not taken any Modvat credit on the depreciated portion of the value of the capital goods. They had filed Chartered Accountant s Certificate in respect of financial years 94-95, 95-96, and 96-97 etc. showing Modvat credit on capital goods availed and deducted, which were capitalised for claim of depreciation. They had also submitted copies of the Income Tax returns. However, the adjudicating authority had not properly appreciated the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right from the origin. The lower authority has also analysed the statements of Modvat credit availed as shown in the written submissions during the personal hearing and has found that the appellants have failed to substantiate the claim that they have deducted the entire amount of Modvat credit taken by them for arriving at the depreciation amount. He has also made note of the discrepancies which have arisen in the CA Certificate produced by the appellants. 5.3 We also note that in respect of repeated opportunities appellants had not produced the supporting evidences and documents for verification in the denovo proceedings. 5.4 Viewed in this context, we are unable to find any merit in the contentions made by the appellant in this sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
