TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scanner was not excisable. In the appeal, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise agreed with the companies contention and passed order in favour of the company. However, this order was revised by the Government of India and the Excise Department again demanded the payment of excise duty. As there could be no clearance of manufactured items from the factory without the payment of excise duty, the company had no option but to deposit the duty amount with the concerned authorities under protest. As and when the payment was made under protest, the same was debited to an account called 'Excise Duty Advance Account'. The amount collected from the customers were credited to the said account. The balance amount remaining in this account was carr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived to the credit of profit and loss account but had kept it in a contingency account accepting the liability to pay to the parties from whom the collection has been made and relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of Wolkem (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 50 CTR (Jp.) 8. It was also contended that as the excise duty amount when paid was not debited to the profit and loss account, but was carried in a separate account and shown only in the balance-sheet, the refund of the same could not be brought to tax under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These contentions were not acceptable to the Assessing Officer. He found that even after three years of receiving the refund, the company had not made any earnest effort to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the Tribunal was that the amount of refund belonged to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, who did not give up their claim against the assessee and thus it was on this fact the decision was referred. Thus distinguishing the facts of the case in the cases relied on by the assessee and the facts of the assessee's own case, the first appellate authority upheld the order of the Assessing Officer observing that the Assessing Officer had clearly stated in his order that the amount would be allowed as a deduction when the assessee produces evidence for having disbursed the refund to the original customers from whom it had collected the excise duty and paid the same to the Excise Department. Thus, he dismissed the claim of the assessee. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the customers even after the lapse of three years. What is worse is that the assessee has not taken any serious effort to refund the amount to the customers from whom it collected the duty. This allegation of the Assessing Officer remains un-controverted even at this stage of the proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) has distinguished the facts of the cases relied on by the assessee and in the light of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, no interference is called for with the order of the CIT (Appeals). 5. Having thus heard rival submissions and the materials on record, we uphold the contention of Sri Abraham, the learned Senior Departmental Representative. No evidence has been let in to show that the High Court had ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the property passed to him. Though the taxable event occurred only when the last instalment was paid and the sale was completed in practice the assessee collected in advance an amount equal to the sales tax liability on the entire price of the lorry from the customers. The amount equal to sales tax liability collected from the customers as aforesaid was credited in an account called "deposit against contingent liability" without it being credited to the profit and loss account. So also the payment to the sales-tax department was not debited to the profits and loss account; instead, it was debited to an account styled "general sales tax account". The result, therefore, was that neither the receipts nor the payments figured in the profit and ....