TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent : Mr. U.A. Rana, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv., Mr. Satendra Kr. Rai, Adv., For M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR, Mr. Jagdish Kumar Chawla, AOR JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. Four of the present appeals involve the same assessee, i.e., M/s Modipon Ltd. and are in respect of the Assessment Years 1993-1994, 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 respectively. The fifth appeal is in case of another assessee, i.e., Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and pertains to the Assessment Year 1996-1997. 3. The question involved in all the appeals is the same and may be formulated as hereunder: "Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment as distinguished from accrual of liability. It is urged on behalf of the Revenue that the amount in deposit is akin to a loan and under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, part or whole of the said amount can be refunded to the assessee. It is further submitted that under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, at any time before removal, the Commissioner or the other authorities prescribed therein may remit duty in respect of manufactured goods lost or damaged or otherwise unfit for consumption or marketing. The amount of advance deposit, therefore, does not represent actual payment of duty so as to entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction under Section 43B. Accordingly the orders of the High Courts challenged in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is compelling good reason or public interest involved so as to reopen the issue. It is submitted that the decisions rendered by the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, on merits, would commend for acceptance. Accordingly, it is submitted that, in the absence of strong compelling reasons, on the ratio of the decision in C.K. Gangadharan and Anr. vs. C.I.T. (2008) 8 SCC 739 the present appeals ought to not be entertained any further. 7. On merits it has been submitted by Shri Vohra that under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, the event for levy of excise duty is the manufacture of goods though the duty is to be paid at the stage of removal of the goods. Pointing out the provisions of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely because of its acceptance of the practice of accounting adopted by the assessee or its acceptance of the decision of the two High Courts in question. An adjudication of the question(s) arising cannot be refused merely on the above basis. We will, therefore, have to proceed to answer the merits of the challenge made by the Revenue in the present appeals. 9. Deposit of Central Excise Duty in the PLA is a statutory requirement. The Central Excise Rules, 1944, specify a distinct procedure for payment of excise duty leviable on manufactured goods. It is a procedure designed to bring in orderly conduct in the matter of levy and collection of excise duty when both manufacture and clearances are a continuous process. Debits against the advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e approval of the authorities. Further the amount deposited could be utilized only for the purpose specified. In those circumstances, the High Court held and in our view correctly, that the deposits made, though a part of the sale proceeds of the assessee, did not constitute taxable income at the hands of the assessee. We do not see why the same analogy would not be applicable to the case in hand. 11. The Delhi High Court in the appeals arising from the orders passed by it has also taken the view that the purpose of introduction of Section 43B of the Central Excise Act was to plug a loophole in the statute which permitted deductions on an accrual basis without the requisite obligation to deposit the tax with the State. Resultantly, on the ....