TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y time earlier. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of decisions of Supreme Court in Polyset Corporation [ 1999 (10) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein held that till date of clearance of goods, excise duty payable on such goods does not get crystallized and assessee cannot be said to have incurred the excise duty liability. Thus, it was held that in respect of the excise goods not being removed, no liability is accrued and there is no question of payment of excise duty. The same view has been reiterated in 'MARUTI SUZUKI (INDIA) LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI' [ 2020 (2) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. NO. 16 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2020 - THE HON'BLE MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir removal from the premises of the respondent. The assessment for Assessment year 1999-00 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act accepting the valuation of the closing stock of the finished goods. Subsequently, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of revenue audit of objections ordered revision of the assessment by passing an order under Section 263 of the Act on 28.08.2003 directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment after including the value of excise duty on the finished goods in the value of closing stock of finished goods and also apply the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer after complying with the directions, passed an order on 30.03.2004. 3. The respondent preferred an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of taxation is manufacture of goods. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has invited the attention of this court to Section 145A of the Act as well as Section 16(3) of the Karnataka State Excise Act, 1965 and has submitted that assessee's liability to pay duty on the goods manufactured arises only at the time of removal of the same. It is further submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of assessee by the Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. POLYSET CORPORATION SUPRA AND 'WALLACE FLOUR MILLS COMPANY LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE', (1989) 4 SCC 592. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
