Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Tribunal had rightly taken note of the Central excise returns and found that one of the units of the assessee was engaged only in job-work activity and therefore not entitled for the benefit of input tax credit and after taking note of the sum paid on such account, the balance amount was adjusted with the available input tax credit in the respective divisions which amounted to actual payment of excise duty. In response to the notice under section 142(1) the assessee had furnished the calculation of valuation of closing stock and the relevant details. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer having been convinced on the assessee’s working did not make any addition or disallowance under section 43B.Order of Tribunal is affirmed. (AY. 2012-13)
PCIT v. Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. (2022) 444 ITR 71 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Provision for excise duty liability-Input tax credit in other units effectively amounting to constructive payment in next financial year-Revision is not valid. [S. 43B, 142(1)]