Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hbd Packaging Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, New Delhi on 25 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 3473/2006-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 48-CE/DLH/2006 dated 18.08.2006 passed by CCE, Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. 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?
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?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. HBD Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, New Delhi Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Shweta Bector, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 25.11.2013 FO ORDER NO. 58394/2013_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
As per facts on record the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the capital goods was proposed to be denied to the appellant for the financial year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 on the ground that the appellant have claimed depreciation from the Income Tax authorities and as such, the Cenvat credit would not be available. During the adjudication proceedings by taking into consideration the fact that the appellant have withdrawn depreciation claim from their Income Tax assessment, the benefit was extended to the appellant for the assessment year 2002-2003. However, for the financial year 2001-2002 the Cenvat credit was disallowed as no revised declaration or claim before the Income Tax authorities were placed.
2. Learned advocate submit that they subsequently filed rectification of mistake application before the Income Tax authorities, which stands allowed by them and they have been permitted to withdraw their claim of depreciation. Though the said orders were placed before the Commissioner (Appeals), he has wrongly recorded that such evidences were not placed before him.
3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision, after examining the appellants claim of allowing the ROM application by the income tax authorities vide which they were allowed to withdrawn the depreciation. The appellant would place all the relevant papers before the appellant authority.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
2