9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of excise duty liabilities under section 43B for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. 2. Determination of whether the assessee acted as an agent for its customers regarding excise duty. 3. Interpretation of "actual payment" under section 43B in the context of furnishing bank guarantees. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Excise Duty Liabilities under Section 43B: The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of excise duty liabilities amounting to Rs. 58,75,999 for the assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 44,58,378 for the assessment year 1987-88 under section 43B. The CIT(A) had deleted these disallowances, leading to the revenue's appeal. 2. Determination of Whether the Assessee Acted as an Agent for Its Customers: The assessee firm was engaged in processing, dyeing, bleaching, and printing of grey cloth on a job work basis. The grey cloth belonged to merchant manufacturers, and the assessee collected excise duty from these merchants. The CIT(A) held that the assessee acted merely as an agent for its customers, who were liable to pay the excise duty, and therefore, section 43B was not applicable. The revenue argued that this interpretation could lead to a situation where neither the customers nor the assessee would be covered under section 43B, frustrating the legislative intent. 3. Interpretation of "Actual Payment" under Section 43B: The assessee contended that the disputed excise duty amounts, which were deposited in fixed deposits and secured by bank guarantees as per the Supreme Court's interim order, should be considered as "actual payment" under section 43B. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in Nuchem Plastic Ltd. and Sunil Silk Mills Ltd., which supported the view that furnishing a bank guarantee amounted to actual payment. Tribunal's Findings: On the Applicability of Section 43B: The Tribunal noted that section 43B was inserted to curb the practice of taxpayers claiming deductions for statutory liabilities without actually paying them. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision should be interpreted reasonably, considering the legislative intent to ensure that statutory liabilities are paid timely. On the Assessee Acting as an Agent: The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee collected excise duty on behalf of merchant manufacturers and deposited the amounts in fixed deposits, providing bank guarantees to the excise authorities. However, it highlighted that the excise duty collected constituted trading receipts in the hands of the assessee, as established by various judicial precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Plastic Products Engg. Co. On "Actual Payment" under Section 43B: The Tribunal referred to multiple decisions, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, which stressed that literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that furnishing a bank guarantee did not amount to actual payment under section 43B. It relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd., which clarified that a bank guarantee is merely a security and not equivalent to actual payment. Conclusion: The Tribunal, in conformity with the majority opinion, held that the assessee was not entitled to claim deductions for the excise duty liabilities for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 under section 43B. The appeals of the revenue were allowed, and the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the actual payment of excise duty would only be recognized when the amounts were paid to the government, not merely secured by bank guarantees.
|
