9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of excise duty under section 43B. 2. Timing of liability to pay excise duty. 3. Matching of revenue and expenses principle. 4. Accounting treatment of excise duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowability of Excise Duty under Section 43B: The main grievance of the revenue was that the CIT(A) erred in treating the excise duty of Rs. 3,03,080 as allowable under section 43B, despite the amount relating to the closing stock of the current assessment year and sales of the next assessment year. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the liability to excise duty arises when the goods are manufactured and not when they are removed. The assessee had paid the excise duty before filing the return for the assessment year 1995-96 and claimed it as a deduction under section 43B. 2. Timing of Liability to Pay Excise Duty: The Assessing Officer argued that the liability to pay excise duty arises only when the goods are removed from the factory premises, making it a contingent liability. However, the CIT(A) and the tribunal held that the liability arises when the excisable goods are manufactured. This view was supported by several Supreme Court judgments, including UOI v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills and Ujagar Prints v. UOI, which stated that excise duty is imposed on the manufacture or production of goods, and its realization may be deferred for administrative convenience to the date of removal. 3. Matching of Revenue and Expenses Principle: The revenue contended that there should be matching of revenue and expenses, implying that the excise duty should be accounted for in the same year as the revenue from the sale of goods. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, explaining that the accounting entries for excise duty in the trading and Profit and Loss Account would neutralize each other, making no difference to the net results. The tribunal emphasized that section 43B allows deductions on an actual payment basis, irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the assessee. 4. Accounting Treatment of Excise Duty: The revenue also argued that the excise duty should have been included in the valuation of the closing stock and reflected in the books of account. The tribunal clarified that the allowability of the claim under section 43B does not depend on the accounting treatment of excise duty. Whether the entry is passed through books or not, the excise duty paid within the time allowed by the first proviso to section 43B is allowable. The tribunal noted that the assessee had added back the excise duty to the total income in the subsequent year to avoid double deduction, thus complying with section 43B. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the excise duty of Rs. 3,03,080 paid before filing the return for the assessment year 1995-96 was allowable under section 43B. The tribunal emphasized that the liability to pay excise duty arises at the point of manufacture, and the accounting treatment or timing of revenue recognition does not affect the allowability of the claim under section 43B.
|
