Supreme Court Of India
CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd.
Asst. Year 1995-1996
S. H. Kapadia CJI & Madan B. Lokur, J.
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 23461/2012 With S.L.P. © No.32817 of 2010 & S.L.P. © No.35277, 35282 of 2010, 2027, 3082 of 2011
19th September, 2012
Counsel appeared
Rahul Kaushik, Rupesh Kumar, S. W. A. Qadri, Arijit Prasad, Anil Katiyar, Vikas Malhotra, Gargi Khanna, Anjani Aiyagari, Zaid Ali, Anil Gaur, B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. For the Petitioner.: Ajay Vohra, Kavita Jha, Puneet Jain, Sushil Kumar Jain, R. P. Bhatt, H. Raghavendra Rao, Amar Dave, Purti Marwaha, Mayank Grover, Gagan Gupta, Advs. For the Respondent
ORDER
Civil Appeal No.6721/2012 at S.L.P. © No.23461/2012, Civil Appeal No.6723/2012 at S.L.P. © No. 35282/2010, Civil Appeal No.6722/2012 at S.L.P. © No.35277/2010, Civil Appeal No.6725/2012 at S.L.P. © No.3082/2011 and Civil Appeal No.6724/2012 at S.L.P. © No.2027/2011:
Heard learned counsel on both sides. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The civil appeals filed by the Department are dismissed with no order as to costs. S.L.P. © No.32817/2010:
The Court would like to see the Note of the Auditor on the financial statement of the Company for the Assessment Year 1995-1996. Place this petition on Tuesday, i.e.,25th September, 2012, as first Item on the Board, for pronouncement of Order, subject to Auditor’s Note being shown by the assessee to the Court. ORDER Civil Appeal No.6721/2012 @ S.L.P. © No.23461/2012: Heard learned counsel on both sides. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The civil appeal filed by the Department concerns Assessment Year 1995-1996. The judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd., reported in (2000) 245 ITR 384 (Bom) squarely applies to this case and the same has been affirmed by this Court, which is reported in (2003) 261 ITR 275. The assessee followed the net method of valuation of closing stock. The Authorities below are right in coming to the conclusion that MODVAT Credit is excise duty paid.
In the circumstances, the civil appeal filed by the Department is dismissed with no order as to costs. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted. These civil appeals filed by the Department concern Assessment Year 1997- 1998. The assessee(s) follows net method of valuation of closing stock [see Note of the Auditor in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. © No.35282 of 2010 at Page 217]. The Note reads as under: “As per the practice consistently followed, excise duty payable estimated at Rs.14,366,145/-on finished goods held in factory are neither included in expenditure nor valued in such stocks but are accounted for on clearance of goods from factory. This accounting treatment however has no impact on the profit for the year.” For the above reasons, the civil appeals filed by the Department are dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No.6724/2012 @ S.L.P. ©
No.2027/2011: Heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted. These civil appeal filed by the Department concerns Assessment Year 1997-1998. The assessee follows net method of valuation of closing stock [see Note of the Auditor at Page 25 paragraph 8 of Additional Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent]. The Note reads as under: “Excise: The company has been accounting liabilities for excise duty on finished products lying in the factory when clearance is made. The liabilities in respect of the finished products lying at the factory at the close of the year has not been provided for in the books of accounts and hence not included in the valuation of inventory of the finished products. However non provision of the excise duty as stated above has no impact on the profit of the year.” For the above reasons, the civil appeal filed by the Department is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[Citation : 352 ITR 481]
