Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cce Vs. S.V. Electronics

Cce vs S.V. Electronics

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 28, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38895

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

S.V. Electronics

Excerpt

2. the revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals). in this case show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for denying the benefit of modvat credit on capital goods on the ground that they availed depreciation under the income tax act in respect of some capital goods including the duty portion. the commissioner (appeals) allowed appeals filed by the respondents on the ground that in the revised income tax authorities, the appellant excluded the portion whereby the depreciation was not claimed and the assessment returns were accepted by the concerned authorities after due assessment on 4.7.2000 and the assessment was finalized disallowing depreciation and without any objection the depreciation was claimed wrongly.3. the revenue filed this appeal on the ground that once the appellant claimed the depreciation before the income tax authorities they are not entitled for the benefit of credit in respect of capital goods and the revised returns were filed after the objection taken by the excise department.4. i find that the income tax returns were duly assessed by the income tax authorities without depreciation in respect of the capital goods on which credit has been taken the appellants are entitled for the benefit of credit in respect of the capital goods in question.shri ghanshyam auto parts pvt. ltd. v.cce reported in 2004 (178) elt 163 allowed the modvat credit in similar situation. in view of the above decision, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeals are dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for denying the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods on the ground that they availed depreciation under the Income Tax Act in respect of some capital goods including the duty portion. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeals filed by the respondents on the ground that in the revised Income Tax authorities, the appellant excluded the portion whereby the depreciation was not claimed and the assessment returns were accepted by the concerned authorities after due assessment on 4.7.2000 and the assessment was finalized disallowing depreciation and without any objection the depreciation was claimed wrongly.

3. The Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that once the appellant claimed the depreciation before the Income Tax authorities they are not entitled for the benefit of credit in respect of capital goods and the revised returns were filed after the objection taken by the excise department.

4. I find that the Income Tax returns were duly assessed by the Income Tax authorities without depreciation in respect of the capital goods on which credit has been taken the appellants are entitled for the benefit of credit in respect of the capital goods in question.Shri Ghanshyam Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v.CCE reported in 2004 (178) ELT 163 allowed the Modvat credit in similar situation. In view of the above decision, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial