TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The appeal was admitted on 28.06.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the claim of Rs. 1,83,04,644/- which is a part of opening balance in Service Tax Set Off Account (STA) made by the assessee as allowable expenditure under Income Tax Act? and 2. Whether Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in giving relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of M/s.NCS Distilleries P. Ltd Vs. I.T.O. by ignoring that the facts in the present case are different and distinguishable?" 3. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing order, yet, the CIT(A) rightly took note of the decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of M/s.NCS Distilleries P. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 16(2) Hyderabad in ITA.No.699/Hyd/2012. In the said decision, the Tribunal took note of an earlier decision of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of M/s.Mohan Spinning Mills Vs. ACIT in ITA.No.1212/Chd/2011 dated 25.04.2012 and also the decision of the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Rangoli Industries P. Ltd. in ITA.No.1936/Ahd/2010 dated 11.01.2013. The operative portion of the order dated 11.01.2013 reads as follows: "6. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and considering the facts of the case as narrated before the authorities, it was observed that the aforesaid amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or claiming the benefit of set off against the excise duty payable on the manufactured items i.e. branded yearn. The assessee was paying higher rate of excise duty on the raw material purchased by it as against the rate of excise duty applicable on the manufactured items, consequently credit of excise duty was available with the assessee. The said excise duty paid from year to year was not claimed as an expenditure but was carried forward from year to year to be adjusted against the excise duty payable by the assessee on its manufactured items. However, during the year under consideration the assessee closed down its manufacturing unit and consequently the benefit of the CENVAT credit remained un-adjusted. Once the manufacturing unit of t....