DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

The captioned appeals were decided vide common order dated 12.03.2024 of the Tribunal. The assessee filed two separate Miscellaneous Applications (MA) against both appeals on the following issues: (i) ITA 4174/Del/2010 - Revenue Appeal:

1 The above-mentioned MAs of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide MA Order dated 13.03.2025. The assessee’s MA arisen from the Assessee Appeal in ITA 4081/Del/2010 was allowed by recalling the said appeal for adjudication of Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2.1 to 2.1.2 and 2.2 of the said appeal as under: "19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that ground no 2.1 to 2.1.2 relating to deduction of duty paid and ground no 2.2 relating to deduction claimed on account of custom duty, have not been adjudicated. We are of considered view that non-adjudication of grounds of appeal, constitutes mistake apparent from record falling within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd: 295 ITR 466 (SC), CIT Reliance Telecom Ltd: 440 ITR 1 (SC). The said Tribunal order is therefore recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating the grounds 2.1 to 2.1.2 and ground 2.2. Accordingly, the M.A. no 355/Del/2024 is allowed."

2 The assessee’s MA arisen from the Revenue Appeal in ITA 4147/Del/2010 was allowed and the consequential addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE components was directed to be deleted. The relevant part of the MA order reads as under: "9. We have heard the rival submissions. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the order dated 12.03.2024 contains apparent mistake on record and the same is required to be rectified. The said mistake is rectified by issuing necessary directions to the limited extent that the disallowance made on account of FPI may, in conformity with the rectified decision of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2019 issued for assessment year 2009-20, is deleted and the grounds of appeal No.6 is accordingly allowed.

In the result, the miscellaneous application no 354/Del/2024 is allowed"

3 Since both MAs were allowed vide MA Order dated 13.03.2025; therefore, the Registry revived both appeals treating the same recalled for limited purpose as above. However, it is evident from the MA Order dated 13.03.2025 that the MA arisen from the Revenue Appeal in ITA 4147/Del/2010 was allowed with the direction to delete the said addition/ disallowance raised in the Ground numbered 6 of the said appeal. Further, the said appeal of the Revenue was not recalled for hearing. In the above background, both appeals were heard together. ITA 4174/Del/2010: 3. As far as the issue of the addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE components raised in ITA 4147/Del/2010 is concerned; we, after hearing both parties on this issue, are of the considered view that the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.03.2025 in the above-mentioned MA has already allowed this issue in favour of the assessee. Thus; we respectfully following the Tribunal’s order dated 13.03.2025 (supra), direct the AO to do needful and allow consequential relief to the assessee accordingly. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of as above. ITA 4081/Del/2010: 4. The first issue raised in Ground numbered 2.1 to 2.1.2 is the disallowance of Excise Duty on vehicles (Rs.59,70,869/-), Excise Duty on spare parts (Rs.24,70,671/-) and R & D Cess (Rs.82,860/-) aggregating to ITA No.4081 & 4174/Del/2010 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 5 Rs.85,24,400/- under section 43B of the Act. In the relevant year, the assessee has claimed deduction of duty of Rs.85,24,400/-, being balance in the PLA, under section 43B of the Act on payment basis as the same has been paid by the assessee under Rule 4 of the Excise Rules, 2002 in order to cover the duty required to be paid on goods to be removed from bonded warehouse. As per the assessee, the excise duty and R & D Cess payable on such goods had been debited to the PLA at the time of removal of said goods. But the AO did not disallow the aforesaid claim of deduction following the assessment order of AY 2005-06, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).

With respect to the first issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.85,24,400/- under section 43B of the Act, the Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that this issue stood covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modipon Ltd.; 400 ITR 1. Further, he submitted that this issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own cases of AYs 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16), AY 1999-00 reported in 406 ITR 562 (Para 16-20) and AY 2000-01 in ITA 442/2005 (Para 3). He further submitted that the Revenue had not challenged any of the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court before the Supreme Court; therefore, this issue had now attained finality. He further drew our attention to various orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own

On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the AO’s order. He contended that the PLA expenses had no relation with the goods manufactured; hence, the disallowance on the basis of custom duty paid on purchases for export could not be allowed as expenses.

We have heard both parties at length and have perused the material available on the record. As far as the first issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.85,24,400/- made under section 43B of the Act is concerned, we have given a thoughtful consideration to this issue and are of the considered opinion that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Coordinate bench in the assessee’s own cases for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11 and earlier years as mentioned above in para 5 of this order. We therefore,

The last issue is in respect of disallowance of Custom duty of Rs.10,28,95,484/- paid on the import of components for export purpose for which the export had not materialized during the relevant year. We have given a thoughtful consideration to this issue and are of the considered opinion that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for AYs 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2005- 06 to 2009-10, which also gets buttressed by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for AYs 1999-2000, against which the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.03.2025. We therefore, respectfully, following the decisions of the Coordinate bench in the assessee’s own cases for AYs AYs 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2005-06 to 2009-10 and the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for AYs 1999-2000 as mentioned above in para 6.1 of this order, hereby delete the disallowance of Rs.10,28,95,484/- made under section 43B of the Act. The assessee

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee. The Revenue appeal is dismissed as above and the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above. Order pronounced in open Court on 22nd August, 2025 (SUDHIR PAREEK) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER