Gujarat High Court
Philips Electronics (India) Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 17 January, 2020
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Bhargav D. Karia
C/TAXAP/2108/2009 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2108 of 2009
==========================================================
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS (INDIA) LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS - VADODARA - I
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BL NARASIMHAN(5813) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 17/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. This tax appeal under Section35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was ordered to be admitted on three substantial questions of law. The order dated 05/11/2009 reads thus: "Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Admit. Issue notice to the respondent on the following substantial question of law:
(i) Whether the Appellants are entitled to the credit of the duty paid on the capital goods after taking corrective action in the year in which the credit was taken?
(ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appellants have claimed depreciation even though admittedly the depreciation was allowed for the limited purpose of carrying forward?
(iii)Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in not examining the contention of the appellants bona fide believed based on its earlier order that once the correction actions are taken, the credit can be taken even when the depreciation was claimed in Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 03:51:25 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/2108/2009 ORDER the earlier years?
Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that they have already preferred Tax Appeal No. 1406 of 2009. Post it along with this appeal. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that on the basis of the order of the Tribunal an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ has already been deposited.
There shall be interim stay on further proceedings."
2. Mr. Sankit Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes a statement that he has instructions from his client not to press this tax appeal and withdraw the same as his client wants to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme, 2019.
3. According to the learned counsel, during the pendency of the present tax appeal, his client is not able to avail the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. In such circumstances, we permit the learned counsel to withdraw this tax appeal.
4. This tax appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed without expressing any opinion on the three substantial questions of law, which have been formulated in the present appeal.
We clarify that in the event, in any reason, if the appellant is not able to seek to get the benefit of the scheme, it shall be open for him to revive this tax appeal.
Direct service is permitted.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) aruna Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 03:51:25 IST 2020