Bpl Techno Vision Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...
- CitationAppeal No. 10-2014-CE
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of whether the appellant may simultaneously avail CENVAT credit and depreciation under the Income Tax Act is decided on a single principle: where the lower authority rejected the claim because the appellant's depreciation claim had not been shown to be withdrawn, and the appellant produces subsequent Income Tax returns that may establish such withdrawal, the rejection cannot stand without verification of that documentary material, and the matter must be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to verify the claim and decide the issue afresh.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 10-2014-CE dated 13/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
BPL Techno Vision Pvt Ltd 17th Km. Old Madras Road, Avalahalli, Virgonagar Post, BANGALORE - 560049 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-i POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri B. Raghavendra, Advocate LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 055 KARNATAKA For the Appellant
For the Appellant
Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 24/06/2015
Date of Decision: 24/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21427 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant can avail the simultaneous benefit of CENVAT credit as also depreciation under the Income Tax Act. The appellants stand is that though initially they had claimed depreciation, subsequently the same was withdrawn to the extent of credit availed by them. Though the lower authorities have observed that the said claims have been withdrawn, but since the revised Income Tax returns have not been placed before them, they have not accepted the claim.
2. Learned advocate submits that now they have subsequent returns with them filed under the Income Tax Act for the subsequent period in which case they have withdrawn the depreciation claim for the previous year. This document would establish the fact of withdrawal of depreciation claim.
3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the above claim of the appellant and to redecide the issue accordingly. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free