1 rng IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.23 OF 2009 EXCISE APPEAL NO.23 OF 2009 EXCISE APPEAL NO.23 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumai-III .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Asian Paints Ltd .. Respondent Mr.J.B.Mishra for Petitioner None for Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I.Rebello and : F.I.Rebello and : F.I.Rebello and J.H.Bhatia, J.H.Bhatia, J.H.Bhatia, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 22nd April, 2009 : 22nd April, 2009 : 22nd April, 2009 P.C. 1. The respondents during the Financial year had claimed modvat of Rs.1,89,393/- on the capital goods and depreciation had been claimed on the net amount after deducting excise duty proportionately on the value of the said capital goods. Subsequently the respondents corrected the error in so far as the claim of depreciation amount was concerned in F.Y. 2000 and reversed the depreciation so claimed. The Commssioner relying on the judgment of Abhishek Synthetics P.Ltd 2005 (182) ELT 339 (Trb.) where the tribunal was pleased to observe that once option is exercised, it is not irreversible. The appellate tribunal has read it as not reversible. In an appeal filed before the CESTAT, the learned CESTAT noted that the Commissioner misread the tribunal’s decision and the decision correctly read would mean that if option is exercised the entry can still be reversed and for that reason set aside the order 2 demanding credit and imposing penalty. 2. In our opinion, considering the said findings, and considering the demand, no substantial question of law in the claim arises. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. { J.H.Bhatia, J } J.H.Bhatia, J } J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } F.I.Rebello, J } F.I.Rebello, J }