9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves the exclusion of excise and customs duty component from the value of closing stock and the allowance of customs and excise duty paid during the year while the manufactured goods were at stock.
Exclusion of excise and customs duty component from closing stock: The Assessing Officer included the customs and excise duty component in the value of the closing stock. The assessee claimed allowance of customs and excise duty paid during the year while the manufactured goods were at stock, but the Assessing Officer disallowed it. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, which led the assessee to appeal further. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a previous decision, stating that no duty related to unsold goods at the close of the year should be added to the charge of the closing stock. The court referred to the decision in CIT v. Dynavision Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 600, where it was held that excise duty should not be included in the valuation of closing stock unless it was given as a deduction in the excise duty account. The court ruled in favor of the assessee based on this precedent. Allowance of customs and excise duty paid during the year: The Tribunal allowed the claim for customs and excise duty paid during the year while the manufactured goods were at stock. The court cited the decision in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99; [2004] 2 RC 702, where it was held that the entire amount of excise duty/customs duty paid by the assessee in a particular accounting year is allowable as a deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, irrespective of the amount included in the valuation of the closing stock. The court ruled in favor of the assessee based on this precedent. Conclusion: The court answered the questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, dismissing the appeal based on the precedents cited.
|
