M/S. Vectra Auto Components Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No 108/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A claimant cannot simultaneously avail CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods and claim depreciation on the same goods under the Income Tax Act; where an assessee asserts that it has revised its books and relinquished the depreciation claim, that assertion is a question of fact requiring verification, and the matter is to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to permit the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate it by documentary evidence within a fixed period, failing which the CENVAT credit claim stands rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 108/2011 dated 29/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore.]
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? No 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
M/s. VECTRA AUTO COMPONENTS PVT LTD NO.26, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE 562107 Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Dr.A.K.Nigam, AC (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 02/02/2015
Date of Decision: 02/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20204 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
A short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appellants have availed CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods for which they have also simultaneously availed deprecation under the Income Tax Act. It is seen that the appellants claimed before the lower authorities that they have revised their books of accounts and relinquished their claim of deprecation under the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities have denied the above stand on the ground that no evidence has been produced before them.
2. Inasmuch as law is clear on the point that simultaneous claim of CENVAT credit and deprecation under the Income Tax Act cannot be made by an assessee and inasmuch as the dispute relates to factual verification of the appellants stand that they have revised their income tax depreciation claim, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for verification of the appellants claim. Needless to say that appellant would be given reasonable opportunity to substantiate their claim by production of documentary evidence. This should be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and in their failure to do so, their claim for CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods would be rejected. Appeal is disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 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