This appeal by assessee is directed against order dated 16-12- 2002 passed by Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Chennai and relates to assessment year 1998-99. 2. first issue relates to sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 6,35,640 being amount of advance written off as irrecoverable. 3. We have heard rival submissions in light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. assessee had placed order on 3-2-1996 with Alps Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. for construction of cold storage plant at its factory at Coimbatore. assessee had advanced Rs. 7,89,500 for erection and commissioning of two numbers of Eurostat 1000 refrigeration machine and other installations at Coimbatore plant. Works could not be executed due to some reasons. sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was recovered. balance amount of Rs. 5,89,500 was claimed as deduction from total income. 4. It was contended before us that advance given to contractor was lost by assessee. It was not asset of enduring nature. advance was made in normal course of business. As such it is to be allowed either as bad debt or as business loss. To buttress contention reliance was placed on various precedents. 5. general conspectus of main plank of learned departmental representative's argument was that expenditure was incidental to commissioning of refrigeration machines and other installations. It was not part of cost of operating profit earning apparatus. expenditure was incidental to acquisition of profit earning apparatus. As such it was clearly in nature of capital expenditure and therefore same cannot be allowed. 6. We now propose of discuss precedents relied upon by learned counsel for assessee. In case of I.B.M. World Trade Corpn. v. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 412 (Bom.) assessee advanced money to landlord for construction of factory shed. landlord leased that shed to assessee. Thereafter landlord became insolvent. assessee written off amount along with interest. Hon'ble High Court has held that loss in question was deductible. In present case we find that facts are different. assessee made payment for owning asset and not just for acquiring jura in re aliena. 7. In case of CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 114 (Raj.) loss was caused on account of breach of contract. assessee did not acquire capital asset. loss was allowed as business loss. court found that new project was launched by same management in relation to same business. In instant case business of assessee was running of cold storage and not setting up of new cold storage. 8. In case of CIT v. Crescent Films (P.) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 670 (Mad.) assessee carried on business of distribution of films. Loss was caused in relation to advance made to producer to complete film for which assessee had acquired distribution rights. loss was held to be deductible. Hon'ble High Court has considered factual details. It was noted that credit is indispensable part of business. It is not necessary that every business should register itself under Money Lenders Act and make claim in relation to any advance made by it only in capacity of person carrying on money lending business. In present case facts are different. As such ratio of this decision is not applicable. 9. In case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 3 7 7 Hon'ble Apex Court diluted enduring benefit theory taking into consideration rapid advances in research in antibiotic medical microbiology. It was held that know-how could not be said to bear element of requisite degree of durability and nonephemerelity to share requirements and qualifications of enduring capital asset. 10. concept of capital and revenue created chaos in judicial cosmos. Various theories were propounded to make distinction between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. But no test can be applied blindly and mechanically. Each case is to be decided on its own facts. general tests to be applied to distinguish capital expenditure or revenue expenditure have been enumerated in various decisions. There is no difficulty in enumerating those tests. But difficulty arises when courts are called upon to apply those tests to given set of facts. Barring rare exceptions facts of no two cases are similar. 11. It is necessary to see whether expenditure was incurred in capital field or revenue field and whether it is cost towards profit earning apparatus or operating profit earning apparatus. learned departmental representative relied on decision in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 13 (SC). In this case it is laid down that what is material to consider is nature of advantage in commercial sense and it is only where advantage is in capital field that expenditure would be disallowable on application of this test. If advantage consists merely in facilitating assessee's trading operations or enabling management and conduct of assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently while leaving fixed capital untouched, expenditure would be on revenue account, even though advantage may endure for indefinite future. test of enduring benefit is, therefore, not certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to particular facts and circumstances of given case. What Hon'ble Apex Court expressed is nature of advantage. It is to be seen whether advantage is in capital field or in revenue field. 12. In case of Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 927 (SC) assessee deposited Rs. 20 lakhs with licensor company for purpose of securing licence under which assessee had acquired right to work licensor's cotton mills. deposit was made pursuant to clause in leave and licence agreement. Had deposit as required by that clause not been made assessee would not have secured licence of cotton mill. At that time assessee was doing no business in cotton. deposit was clearly made for purpose of acquiring profit making asset to carry on business in cotton. It cannot, therefore, be held that deposit was made on revenue account or that loss thereof must be treated as business loss. loss thereof was loss suffered on capital account and could not be deducted. 13. In facts of present case also we find that assessee advanced money to secure capital advantage. expenditure was incurred towards cost of acquiring profit earning apparatus. On this factual matrix it cannot be said that loss caused due to non-recovery of advance was in revenue field. It was in capital field only. As such it cannot be allowed as revenue loss. Since it was not debt, it cannot be allowed as bad debt. We have perused reasonings adduced in impugned order. In our opinion Commissioner (Appeals) took correct view in matter and his order calls for no interference on this count. Accordingly, we uphold same. 14. next issue relates to allowability of PF and ESI contributions made at end of assessment year. We find that assessee raised this issue in grounds taken before Commissioner (Appeals). This issue was not adjudicated. We, therefore, in interest of justice restore this issue to file of Commissioner (Appeals) with direction to decide same in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to assessee of being heard. 15. In result appeal of assessee stands partly allowed. *** KWALITY FUN FOODS & RESTAURANTS (P) LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX