{"id":3876,"date":"2011-11-11T06:57:54","date_gmt":"2011-11-11T06:57:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3876"},"modified":"2011-11-11T06:57:54","modified_gmt":"2011-11-11T06:57:54","slug":"acit-vs-the-total-packaging-services-itat-mumbai-for-s-80-ib-modvat-credit-is-derived-from-industrial-undertaking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-the-total-packaging-services-itat-mumbai-for-s-80-ib-modvat-credit-is-derived-from-industrial-undertaking\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT vs. The Total Packaging Services (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=543\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=543&varname2=total_packaging_modvat_credit_80_IB.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (total_packaging_modvat_credit_80_IB.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nFor s. 80-IB, Modvat credit is \u201cderived\u201d from industrial undertaking<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee availed\/set off Modvat credit of excise duty of earlier years amounting to Rs. 1.93 crores. The AO held that s. 80-IB deduction was not admissible on the said Modvat credit on the ground that the \u201c<em>source of the income was government policy imposing excise duty at differential rate<\/em>\u201d and it was not \u201c<em>derived<\/em>\u201d from the industrial undertaking. This was reversed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The payment of central excise duty has a <strong>direct nexus with the manufacturing activity<\/strong> and similarly, the refund of the Central excise duty also has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. The issue of payment of Central excise duty would not arise in the absence of any industrial activity. There is, therefore, an <strong>inextricable link between the manufacturing activity, the payment of central excise duty and its refund<\/strong>. Consequently, it is \u201cderived\u201d from the industrial undertaking and eligible for s. 80-IB deduction (<strong>CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels<\/strong> 332 ITR 91 (Gau) and <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-j-k-aluminium-co-vs-ito-itat-delhi-despite-liberty-india-excise-refund-eligible-for-s-80ib\/\">J.K. Aluminium vs. ITO<\/a><\/strong> (ITAT Delhi) followed)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<strong>Note<\/strong>: <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/liberty-india-vs-cit-supreme-court\">Liberty India<\/a><\/strong> 317 ITR 218 (SC) which held that duty drawback &#038; DEPB are \u201c<em>not derived<\/em>\u201d from the undertaking was considered. See also <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-shree-balaji-alloys-vs-cit-jk-high-court-refund-of-excise-duty-under-subsidy-scheme-is-a-capital-receipt-not-taxable\/\">Shree Balaji Alloys<\/a><\/strong> 51 DTR 217 (J&#038;K) where excise refund was held to be a \u201c<em>capital receipt<\/em>\u201d\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>For s. 80-IB, Modvat credit is \u201cderived\u201d from industrial undertaking The assessee availed\/set off Modvat credit of excise duty of earlier years amounting to Rs. 1.93 crores. The AO held that s. 80-IB deduction was not admissible on the said &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-the-total-packaging-services-itat-mumbai-for-s-80-ib-modvat-credit-is-derived-from-industrial-undertaking\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">ACIT vs. The Total Packaging Services (ITAT Mumbai)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3876","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}