Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 16 May, 2001

K.V. Mills vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 9 November, 2001

5. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that this matter requires fresh appreciation of facts in the light of the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad (supra) delivered by the Mumbai bench, in which it has been held that if the revised returns excluding that part of value filed and accepted by Income Tax Department, then mere filing of return claiming depreciation on total value is not sufficient to disallow credit, particularly in view of workings of Rule 57R (5) and the amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act made in 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.94 unless depreciation is allowed by Income Tax Department, credit is not to be denied though claimed in the return by the assessee. We, therefore direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider the provisions of Income Tax Act and accounting practice followed by the appellants after giving an opportunity to the appellants to produce all the documents and evidence which they want to produce in their defence. The appeal is allowed by way of remand by setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Sri Sreerama Sahakara Sakkare vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 January, 2008

In this order the Tribunal decided that once the export Agency certified that the export quota had been fulfilled, the excise department had no authority to challenge the said judgment when the provisions of Sugar Export Promotion Act, 58 conferred no such authority on the central excise authorities to sit in judgment of the said authority and hold that export in question had not been completed. It was also held that even if the quota sugar was not delivered to the agency, initiating proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Section 7 of the SEPA by the department on their own without corresponding advice from the designated authority under the SEPA was illegal. He also submitted that the notices to demand AED in terms of SEPA were issued beyond the normal period and the demands were barred by limitation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pasari Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex., Bangalore on 18 January, 2002

(d) We find substance in the reliance of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad - [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1225 (T) = 2001 (98) ECR 490 (T)] by the appellants, especially the findings in para 6 of the reported decision. Respectfully following this decision of the Tribunal, we would also set aside this order and remand the matter back to the original authority, with directions that the Commissioner ought to have considered the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as regards Revised Returns and satisfied himself by looking at the actual and income tax returns and other documents whether any depreciation claimed was in fact availed as accepted in these statutory documents returns provided under the Income Tax Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Tnscp Spinning Mills vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 April, 2002

4. After hearing both the sides we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh appreciation of facts in the light of the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karakhana Ltd. v. CCE (supra) in which it has been held that if the revised Returns are filed excluding that part of value and accepted by the Income tax Department, mere filing of return claiming depreciation on total value is not sufficient to disallow Modvat credit, particularly, in view of wordings of Rule 57 R(5) and the amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act made in 1998 with effect from 1.4.94. Unless depreciation is allowed by Income tax department, credit is not to be denied though claimed in the return by the assessee. Therefore, both the appeals are remanded back to the lower adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority shall examine whether depreciation claimed on revenue expenditure under Section 32 of the Income tax Act would be a bar to claim the Modvat credit in view of the wordings of Rule 57R(5) of the rules ibid and the amendment to Section 43(1) of the income tax Act 1961 made in 1998, with effect from 1.4.94. We, therefore, direct the original authority to reconsider the depreciation as contended by the Ld. Counsels after affording an opportunity to the appellants to produce all the documents in support of their case. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alcobex Metals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 November, 2002

2. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit by holding that by claiming depreciation of the modvat credit, the appellants could not take the credit. But the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed these findings of the adjudicating authority by following the ratio of the law laid down in Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2001 (46) RLT 1079 wherein it has been observed that modvat credit which was legally admissible to an assessee, could not be disallowed on the ground that he had claimed depreciation of the amount in his Income Tax Returns also.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next