9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g is also decided against the assessee - - - - - Dated:- 4-2-2005 - Judge(s) : K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN., C. N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by C.N. Ramachandran Nair J.- The same questions of law are raised in these appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1992-93, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The main question raised for all the three years is whether the Tribunal was right in confirming disallowance of the assessee's claim for exemption on export profits under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The other question pertains to the confirmation of disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-I of the Act f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission for exports made through Export Houses and the three authorities below gave a concurrent finding that the exports in question were made by the assessee through Export Houses and in relation to such exports, the assessee is only a supporting manufacturer which can be granted exemption strictly on the basis of disclaimer certificate to be obtained and produced from the Export Houses in Form No. 10CCAB in terms of section 80HHC(4A) of the Act which the assessee failed to produce. Counsel for the assessee argued before us that the agreement between the assessee and the Export Houses provided for transfer of goods on board the vessel after the vessel crossed the customs frontier and so much so, according to him, the assessee's sales are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales consideration cannot even raise a contention to the contrary, which is self-contradictory. So far as the issue on the merits is concerned, that is whether the asses-see is entitled to exemption on export under section 80HHC(1A) is concerned, the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sea Pearl Industries v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 578, wherein the Supreme Court has held that exemption under section 80HHC(1A) can be granted to the supporting manufacturer only based on the disclaimer certificate issued by the Export House. It is conceded that the petitioner has not produced disclaimer certificate under section 80HHC(4A) from the Export Houses for two years for claiming exemption und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Going by the above Supreme Court decision, the petitioner who is proved to be a supporting manufacturer is not entitled to claim exemption without production of a valid disclaimer certificate in time issued by the Export House in Form No. 10CCAB. Therefore we uphold the decision of the Tribunal on this question based on the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to. The other question raised for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 pertains to deduction under section 80-I in respect of industry engaged in fish processing and packing which is also covered against the assessee by the two decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Relish Foods [1999] 237 ITR 59 and CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174. The Tribunal has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
