9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "goods" under section 280ZD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the tax credit should be calculated based on overall production or individual varieties of paper. 3. Whether the tax credit should be granted mill-wise or based on overall clearance from all units of production. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "goods" under section 280ZD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court had to determine whether the term "goods" in section 280ZD referred to paper as a whole or to individual varieties of paper. The respondent-company argued that each variety of paper should be treated as separate goods, while the Central Authority assessed the tax credit based on the overall production of paper, setting off shortfalls in one variety against excesses in another. The court held that "goods" should be interpreted to mean individual varieties of paper. The judgment emphasized that the term "goods" is not defined in the Income-tax Act but is defined in the Scheme as excisable goods. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, further defines excisable goods as those specified in the First Schedule, which lists different varieties of paper with different excise duties. Therefore, the court concluded that each variety of paper constitutes distinct goods for the purpose of tax credit under section 280ZD. Issue 2: Whether the tax credit should be calculated based on overall production or individual varieties of paper. The court agreed with the respondent-company's contention that tax credit should be granted based on individual varieties of paper. The court reasoned that since different varieties of paper are subject to different rates of excise duty, calculating the tax credit based on overall production would be unreasonable. The court noted that the amount of tax credit is to be calculated with reference to the excise duty payable on the excess amount of goods cleared, not on the total production. Thus, the Central Authority's method of setting off shortfalls in one variety against excesses in another was incorrect. Issue 3: Whether the tax credit should be granted mill-wise or based on overall clearance from all units of production. The respondent-company argued that the tax credit should be calculated mill-wise or unit-wise, rather than based on the overall clearance from all its units. The court rejected this argument, stating that section 280ZD grants tax credit to the person who manufactures and clears the goods, not to individual manufacturing units. Therefore, the overall production and clearance of goods by the manufacturer should be considered to determine excess clearance and calculate the tax credit. Conclusion: The court dismissed both the appeals and the cross-objections. The judgments and orders of the trial court were affirmed, holding that: 1. The term "goods" under section 280ZD refers to individual varieties of paper. 2. Tax credit should be calculated based on the clearance of each variety of paper separately. 3. Tax credit should be granted based on the overall clearance from all units of production, not mill-wise. The appeals and cross-objections were dismissed with no order for costs.
|
